Monday, December 07, 2009

Various Controversial Popes

Mirror link

Some reliable sources' discussions of and responses to charges of vice against various oft-maligned pontiffs.

Pope St. Marcellinus (6/30/296-4/1/304)
There were even later reports in circulation that accused him of having given up the sacred books after the first edict, or even of having offered incense to the gods, to protect himself from the persecution. But the sources in which this reproach is clearly stated are very questionable. ... The Donatist Bishop Petilianus of Constantine in Africa asserted, in the letter he wrote in 400 and 410, that Marcellinus and the Roman priests Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester (his three successors) had given up the sacred books, and had offered incense. But he could not adduce any proof. In the Acts of confiscation of the church buildings at Rome, which at the great Carthaginian conference between Catholics and Donatists, were brought forward by the latter, only two Roman deacons, Straton and Cassius, were named as traitors. St. Augustine, in his replies to Petilianus, disputes the truth of the latter's report ("Contra litteras Petiliani", II, 202: "De quibus et nos solum respondemus: aut non probatis et ad neminem pertinet, aut probatis et ad nos non pertinet"; "De unico baptismo contra Petilianum", cap. xvi: "Ipse scelestos et sacrilegos fuisse dicit; ego innocentes fuisse respondeo"). One can only conclude from Petilianus's accusation that such rumours against Marcellinus and Roman priests were circulated in Africa; but that they could not be proved, otherwise St. Augustine would not have been able to assert the innocence of the accused so decidedly, or safely to have referred to the matter at the Carthaginian conference (Kirsch).
Pope St. Liberius (5/17/352-9/24/366)
But the strongest arguments for the innocence of Liberius are a priori. Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it; it would have been more notorious than even that gained over Hosius. ... Further, the pope's decree after Rimini, that the fallen bishops could not be restored unless they showed their sincerity by vigour against the Arians, would have been laughable, if he himself had fallen yet earlier, and had not publicly atoned for his sin. Yet, we can be quite certain that he made no public confession of having fallen, no recantation, no atonement (Chapman).
Pope Vigilius (12/2/537-6/7/555)
The change in his position is to be explained by the fact that the condemnation of the writings mentioned was justifiable essentially, yet appeared inopportune and would lead to disastrous controversies with Western Europe (Kirsch).
Pope Honorius I (10/27/625-10/12/638)


It has been sometimes said that St. Leo in these words interprets the decision of the Council about Honorius in a mild sense, or that he modifies it. It is supposed that by "permitted to be polluted" Leo II means no positive action, but a mere neglect of duty, grave enough in a Pope, but not amounting to the actual teaching of heresy. If Leo II had meant this, he would have been mistaken. Honorius did positively approve the letter of Sergius, as the Council pointed out. Further, the merely negative ruling of the typus had been condemned as heresy by the Lateran Council.1 As a fact the words of Leo II are harsher than those of the Council. He declares that Honorius did not publish the apostolic doctrine of his See, and he represents this as a disgrace to the Church of Rome itself, as a pollution of the unspotted. This no Eastern Bishop had ventured to say. The anathemas on Pope Honorius have been again and again continued. A few years later he is included in the list of heretics by the Trullan Synod, a Council whose canons were not, however, and could not be received by Rome and the West. But the seventh and eighth oecumenical Councils did the same, although the eighth Council formally declared that the Church of Rome had never erred. ... Unquestionably no Catholic has the right to deny that Honorius was a heretic (though in the sense that Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were heretics), a heretic in words if not in intention ... Honorius was mentioned as a heretic in the lessons of the Roman Breviary for June 28th, the feast of St. Leo II, until the i8th century, when the name was omitted as liable to cause misunderstanding. In the Middle Ages, "to lie like the second nocturn" was a proverb, and no doubt the Breviary is still full of historical errors. Nevertheless, the persistence of this reading through many centuries at all events shows that it was not found scandalous by our forefathers, and was perfectly well understood until controversy with later views, Gallican and Protestant, suggested difficulties.  (Chapman 114-116).

[Emperor Constantine IV] calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra. (Chapman)
Pope Stephen VI (5/22/896-8/897)
Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. ... Fortunately it was not granted to Stephen to have time to do much else besides this atrocious deed. Before he was put to death by strangulation, he forced several of those who had been ordained by Formosus to resign their offices and he granted a few privileges to churches (Mann).

He did hold a local synod in the early part of 897, the strangest synod ever held and the most gruesome. Although he had been consecrated bishop by Pope Formosus, Stephen seems to have belonged to the opposite faction. But probably the moving spirit in this horrid business was the house of Spoleto. It will be remembered that Formosus, after crowning young Lambert, had called in Arnulf to become emperor and put down the Spoletans. Driven out of Rome by Arnulf and threatened in Spoleto itself, Lambert was saved by Arnulf's sudden sickness. Then he cleared out Arnulf's officials and took over central Italy. In January 897 Lambert and his mother, the fiery Ageltruda, entered Rome in triumph. But Formosus was beyond vengeance. He was dead and buried with honor as pope. This last fact could still be canceled. ... When Lambert had to leave to fight the marquis of Tuscany, the Romans rose against Stephen. Then he was seized and himself stripped of the pontifical robes. Clad in a monk's habit, he was thrown into a dungeon, and in August, 897, Stephen VII was strangled (Brusher).
Pope Sergius III (1/29/904-4/14/911)
Sergius at once declared the ordinations conferred by Formosus null; but that he put his two predecessors to death, and by illicit relations with Marozia had a son, who was afterwards John XI, must be regarded as highly doubtful. These assertions are only made by bitter or ill-informed adversaries, and are inconsistent with what is said of him by respectable contemporaries [such as Flodoard] (Mann).
Pope John XI (3/931-12/935)
Through the intrigues of his mother, who ruled at that time in Rome, he was raised to the Chair of Peter, and was completely under the influence of the Senatrix et Patricia of Rome. ... In this way Alberic became ruler of Rome, and the pope, who suffered by his mother's fall, now became almost entirely subject to his brother, being only free in the exercise of his purely spiritual duties. All other jurisdiction was exercised through Alberic. This was not only the case in secular, but also in ecclesiastical affairs. It was at the instance of Alberic that the pallium was given to Theophylactus, Patriarch of Constantinople (935), and also to Artold, Archbishop of Reims (933). It was this pope who sat in the Chair of Peter during its deepest humiliation, but it was also he who granted many privileges to the Congregation of Cluny, which was later on so powerful an agent of Church reform (Kirsch).
Pope John XII (12/16/955-5/14/964)
"There cannot be a doubt that John XII was anything but what a Pope, the chief pastor of Christendom, should have been" (Mann IV:241).

The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person — a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. War and the chase were more congenial to this pope than church government (Kirsch).

John XII has a bad reputation, but it is only fair to remember that many of the stories told about him come from political enemies, especially that evil-tongued old gossip, Liutprand of Cremona. But even after allowing a generous discount for prejudice, enough remains against John XII to rank him as one of the few bad popes (Brusher).

He [John XII] brought to the Chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth in the account to have brought down the scandal of the pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy, which makes angels weep and Hell exult ... John XII looked upon his new dignity only as a means of more fully indulging his licentious passions (Darras II:592).
Pope John XIII (10/1/965-9/6/972)
John XII might have been called John the Bad; John XIII was called John the Good. ... John XIII died peacefully at Rome, September 6, 972. Though noticeably under Otto's influence, he was a good pope (Brusher).

John XIII ... reigned from A.D. 965 to A.D. 972. The most impartial writers speak loudly in his praise. He was "un dignissimo papa" according to Muratori [An. 972 p. 283] (Miley II:340).
Pope Benedict IX (10/1032-5/1/1045)
He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. ... But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata. [See "St. Benedict and Grottaferrata" (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important "De Sepulcro Benedicti IX", by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747)] (Mann, Benedict IX).

"That [Clement II] was poisoned by the partisans of Benedict IX is a mere suspicion without proof" (Mann, Clement II).

Martin IV (2/22/1281-3/28/1285)
From this total rejection [of all Eastern Catholics post-Lyons as insincere converts] and unmerited condemnation of men who (whatever their motives) had risked their fortunes and their lives for the Catholic Faith and the Church of Rome, flowed all the ensuing evils of Martin IV's pontificate, and many of the still worse disasters that came after it. No Pope has made a greater mistake. ... there could be no excuse for calling such a war [by Charles of Anjou against Sicily] a crusade. Everyone knew it. It is hard to imagine how Pope Martin IV could have even justified it to himself. ... [Martin] had re-created the Eastern schism; destroyed the crusading ideal; riven the body of Christendom by incessantly demanding war to the finish against two large Christian countries, Sicily and Aragon--wars that could not be won, whose prosecution was to hang like a millstone around the necks of the Popes for the next quarter-century; and made himself little more than an instrument of French foreign policy. In just four years in office Martin IV had done as much harm to Christendom as any Pope in two millenia. (Carroll III:312, 315, 316-317).

Pope Boniface VIII (12/24/1294-10/11/1303)
Pope John XXII (8/7/1316-12/4/1334)
[T]here has been much speculation about whether and under what circumstances a Pope might hold an erroneous theological opinion without teaching it so as to be binding on the whole Church; but the Beatification Vision controversy involving Pope John XXII is the only actual example of this kind. .... a touch of senility may help to explain the astonishing imprudence of John XXII in this particular matter ... Pope John XXII argued that only the complete human being--soul and body reunited, after the resurrection, can truly see God [except for Jesus and Mary]. ... [John said] the souls of the blessed dead ... see the human Christ, but not His full divinity. (The Pope's critics--and he had many--did not hesitate to call this a revival of the Nestorian heresy, which separated too widely Christ's divine nature from His human nature.) These views, proclaimed suddenly and without warning in November 1331, were directly contrary to the position Pope John XXII had taken earlier on the same subject in his bull of canonization of the Franciscan Archbishop of Toulouse, Louis of Anjou, in 1317 and his correspondence with the Armenian Church in 1321 and with the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1326. ... a Pope can never really be only a "private theologian." While he may speak on theological issues without intending to bind the faithful, his unique post and duties and responsibilities make it inevitable that any pronouncement by him on such issues will have enormous impact. He cannot avoid seeming to teach whenever he speaks on theology. For a Pope to propose a doctrine, actually or apparently contrary to that held by most of the Church, when he is not sure of its truth, is imprudent in the highest degree. No Pope has ever gone so far in such imprudence as John XXII in the Beatific Vision controversy. ... the Pope was not imposing his erroneous view, nor teaching it ex cathedra. But by continuing to press the issue he was putting himself and the Church in a most peculiar position--indeed, almost inviting the Church to repudiate him on a subject where he had supreme and infallible authority but was refusing to exercise it, evidently because he had genuine doubts about the truth of his propositions. But if he doubted them, why in the world did he keep proposing them? History gives us no answer to that question; but a Catholic historian can well remind us that this would not have been the first time Satan had tempted a Pope, right up to the brink of a disaster which God will not allow to happen. ... A year later, on his deathbed at ninety, facing the Judgment, Pope John XXII retreacted his error. ... Papal infallibility had once again been preserved--and once again, as with Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, by a very narrow margin. (Carroll III:371-373).

In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. (Kirsch 433)
Pope Clement V (6/5/1305-4/20/1314)
The memory of Clement V comes down to us charged with having ambitiously intrigued for the tiara, by promising to Philip the Fair to rescind the acts of Boniface, and to condescend to his will on some important point, not then disclosed. This compact originally rests on the authority of Villani, a partisan of the schismatical Louis of Bavaria. On the same suspicious testimony, his supposed amours with the countess of Perigord have been too lightly credited, notwithstanding the silence of his early biographers, six in number (Kenrick 420).
Pope Clement VI (5/7/1342-12/6/1352)
Villani has attacked the moral character of Clement VI, but I feel dispensed from vindicating it, whilst it is assailed only by the professed enemy of the lawful Pontiffs (Kenrick 420).
Pope Urban VI (4/8/1378-10/15/1389)
Carroll III:
Pope Paul II (8/30/1464-7/26/1471)
The sudden death of Paul II, who was found dead in his bed, arose from an unwholesome supper on melons; and was not attended with any disgraceful circumstances. Although his life was not austere, there is not any ground for censuring his conduct, unless, perhaps, his failure to observe the conditions to which, in common with the other cardinals in conclave, he had bound himself. This, however, may be accounted for by the necessity of his situation, in which he deemed it injurious to observe restrictions unwisely imposed on an authority which Christ willed to be free. Above a century before, Innocent VI had declared such engagements to be radically null (Kenrick 420-421).
Pope Innocent VIII (8/29/1484-7/25/1492)
Although Pope Innocent meant well, he contributed to the decline of papal prestige by his open acknowledgment of his illegitimate children in the Vatican. His son Franceschetto, who was living a dissolute life, was no help to the Pope. Then too, Innocent was very hard pressed for funds. To get them he increased the number of purchasable offices. This in turn caused graft and corruption among official. ... But his pontificate, on the whole, did little for the Church. He himself seemed to realize this, and on his deathbed he asked the cardinals' forgiveness for having done so little and begged them to elect a better successor. ... Innocent VIII died devoutly on July 25, 1492 (Brusher).

Innocent VIII, though not personally an evil man, was a failure as Pope, and his failure opened the way to the disastrous pontificate of Rodrigo Borgia that was to follow after Innocent died in 1492 (Carroll III:623).
Pope Alexander VI (8/11/1492-8/18/1503)


(Parsons )

(Pastor)

(Darras)

... though Borgia made many promises to his supporters of offices and benefits if he became Pope, the cardinals appear to have been more influenced in their voting by political considerations than by prospects of personal financial gain, believing--with some reason--that Rodrigo Borgia was the cleverest and most effective political operator among the papal candidates. .... [Alexander VI] publicly and repeatedly acknowledged all seven [children] as his own, and there is some reason to believe that an eighth child of his was born while he was Pope, though this is not certain. All attempts to rehabilitate Rodrigo Borgia--and there have been several--must founder in the face of this appalling scandal, unmatched in the whole 2000-year history of the papacy. The lush and lurid Borgia legend, mushrooming down the years, is certainly not all true; many of its stories (such as the incest of Rodrigo Borgia's daughter Lucrezia with her brother and/or her father) are historical unsupported and unworthy of belief. ... The five-volume apologia for Rodrigo Borgia by Peter de Roo, Materials for a History of Alexander VI, his Relatives and his Times (Bruges 1924, though extensively researched and occasionally a useful corrective to exaggerations of the Borgia legend, is essentially vitiated as a reliable source by the author's persistent refusal to admit that [Borgia's children were in fact his children]. (Carroll III: 637-639)

Recent research [by Michael Edward Mallett] has largely cleared [Alexander VI] of the charge of simony at his election as Pope, but the disgrace of his personal life stands. The Catholic historian can do no better than to quote the magisterial verdict of one of the greatest of his kind, Ludwig von Pastor: "Thus he who should have been the guardian of his time, saving all that could be saved, contributed more than any other man to steep the Church in corruption. His life of unrestrained sensuality was in direct contradiction with the precepts of Him whose representative on earth he was, and to this he gave himself up to the very end of his days. But it is noteworthy that in matters purely concerning the Church, Alexander never did anything that justly deserves blame; even his bitterest enemies are unable to formulate any accusation against him in this respect. Her doctrines were maintained in all their purity. It seemed as though his reign were meant by Providence to demonstrate the truth that though men may hurt the Church they cannot harm her...Just as the intrinsic worth of a jewel is not lessened by an inferior setting, so the sins of a priest cannot essentially affect his power of offering sacrifice or administering sacraments or transmitting doctrine. The personal holiness of the priest is, of course, of the highest importance for the lives of the faithful, inasmuch as he constitutes a living example for them to follow, and compels the respect and esteem of those who are outside. Still the goodness or badness of the temporary minster can exercise no substantial influence on the being, the divine character, or the holiness of the Church; on the word of revelation; on the graces and spiritual powers with which she is endowed. Thus even the supreme high priest can in no way diminish the value of that heavenly treasure which he controls as dispenses, but only as a steward. The gold remains gold in impure as in pure hands".105 105: Von Pastor, History of the Popes, VI, 140-141 (Carroll III:672)

(Brusher)
Pope Julius II (10/31/1503-2/21/1513)
The ardor of the martial Julius II betrayed him in youth into excess, of which a daughter was the acknowledged fruit. Her children were promoted to the purple. Since St. Francis de Paula is known to have foretold to him his elevation to the papal throne, we have reason to believe, that after his entrance into orders, his morals were blameless (Kenrick 421).

Julius II was chiefly a soldier, and the fame attached to his name is greatly due to his re-establishment of the Pontifical States and the deliverance of Italy from its subjection to France. Still he did not forget his duties as the spiritual head of the Church. He was free from nepotism; heard Mass almost daily and often celebrated it himself; issued a strict Bull against simony at papal elections and another against duels; erected dioceses in the recently discovered American colonies of Haiti (Espanola), San Domingo, and Porto Rico; condemned the heresy of Piero de Lucca concerning the Incarnation on 7 September, 1511; made various ordinances for monastic reforms; instituted the still existing Capella Julia, a school for ecclesiastical chant which was to serve as a feeder for the Capella Palatina; and finally convoked the Fifth Lateran Council to eradicate abuses from the Church and especially from the Roman Curia, and to frustrate the designs of the schismatic cardinals who had convened their unsuccessful council first at Pisa, then at Milan (Ott).

He was vigorous, irascible, a man of his own counsel, very much a man of his own age, an outstanding personality in an age of individualists. He is chiefly remembered for two things: he rebuilt the papal kingdom, and he made Rome a Mecca for artists and art-lovers. ... After ailing for some time Julius II died peacefully on February 21, 1513. His death was regretted by the Romans, for if he had not been a great Pope, he had been a good king. Julius II shocked many by his open display of power politics, but it must be said that if Julius worked like a secular prince, it was not to promote the glory of his own family, but the welfare of the papal kingdom. He has been called the second founder of the papal states (Brusher).
Pope Leo X (3/9/1513-12/1/1521)
The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: "In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes". Von Reumont says pertinently–"Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church" (Löffler).
Pope Paul III (10/13/1534-11/10/1549)
Paul III owned as his son Pier Luigi Farnese, who was alleged to be the fruit of a secret marriage, before his father entered into orders. His grandson Alexander was promoted to the purple, which he adorned by his virtues. Paul was truly a great Pontiff, whose administration was most advantageous to the Church: but the lustre of his reign was tarnished by family attachments (Kenrick 421).

Though he entered the service of the Church and was created cardinal in 1503 by Alexander VI, he lived a loose life. But he gradually improved, and when in 1519 he decided to become a priest, he turned over a new leaf and thenceforth lived chastely. ... Paul III ... was a good pope, a strong pope, sagacious, energetic, and largely devoted; not entirely devoted, for he was guilty of favoring his relations. But he compensated for this dangerous fault by his great work in promoting the Catholic Reform (Brusher).

Not all the popes repose in monuments corresponding to their importance in the history of the Church; but few will be disposed to contest the right of Farnese to rest directly under Peter's chair. He had his faults; but they injured no one but himself. The fifteen years of his pontificate saw the complete restoration of Catholic faith and piety. He was succeeded by many saintly pontiffs, but not one of them possessed all his commanding virtues. In Rome his name is written all over the city he renovated. The Pauline chapel, Michelangelo's work in the Sistine, the streets of Rome, which he straightened and broadened, the numerous objects of art associated with the name of Farnese, all speak eloquently of the remarkable personality of the pontiff who turned the tide in favour of religion. If to this we add the favour accorded by Paul to the new religious orders then appearing, the Capuchins, Barnabites, Theatines, Jesuits, Ursulines, and many others, we are forced to confess that his reign was one of the most fruitful in the annals of the Church (Loughlin).
Pope Julius III (2/7/1550-3/29/1555)
Julius was a well-meaning but easy-going man. He favored his relatives, spent money lavishly, and loved good times. But on the other hand, he did continue Paul III's work in favoring the forces of reform. At the instance of St. Ignatius he founded the famous German College to provide zealous and learned priests for the afflicted Empire. ... Julius showed excellent good sense and tact in his dealings with England ... He was rewarded by seeing England once more a Catholic country. ... Julius might have been more fond of ease and jollification than suited either his state or the times, but it is to his credit that the work of reform did continue (Brusher).

At the beginning of his pontificate Julius III had the earnest desire to bring about a reform in the Church and with this intent he reopened the Council of Trent. That the council was again suspended was due to the force of circumstances. His inactivity during the last three years of his pontificate may have been caused by the frequent and severe attacks of the gout to which he was subject. The great blemish in his pontificate was nepotism. Shortly after his accession he bestowed the purple on his unworthy favourite Innocenzo del Monte, a youth of seventeen whom he had picked up on the streets of Parma some years previously, and who had been adopted by the pope's brother, Balduino. This act gave rise to some very disagreeable rumours concerning the pope's relation to Innocenzo. Julius was also extremely lavish in bestowing ecclesiastical dignities and benefices upon his relatives (Ott).

The accusation, however, of the gravest immorality has never been proved against him, either at that time or afterwards. Julius himself was to blame that such an idea should have arisen and been believed, as his attitude towards Innocenzo del Monte must have given rise to the gravest suspicions, especially at a time of such unbridled license. 1... Had there been any proof of the accusation Sarpi would not have failed to put it forward.  (Pastor XIII:71-72).
Works Cited
*Brusher, Fr. Joseph, S.J. Popes Through the Ages. 7 Dec. 2009 <https://web.archive.org/web/20110419200138/http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/pope/CFPtoc.htm>.
*Carroll, Dr. Warren Hasty, The Glory of Christendom, 1100-1517: A History of Christendom, vol. 3 (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993)
*The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/>.
*Chapman, John, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius (London, Catholic Truth Society, 1907) <https://archive.org/details/a620530200chapuoft>. 
*Kenrick, Francis Patrick. The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1855. 7 Dec. 2009 <http://www.archive.org/details/a588970300kenruoft>.
*Mann, Rev. Fr. Horace Kinder. The Lives of the Popes In The Early Middle Ages, vol. IV. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1910. 7 Dec. 2009 <http://www.archive.org/details/livesofpopesinea04mannuoft>.

No comments: