History’s Craziest Popes

While Formosus’ pontifical reign is noted more for its brevity than its breadth, it’s the absolute insanity that defined his afterlife that makes him one of the world’s craziest popes. A year following his death, the rather batty Pope Stephen VI ordered Formosus’ desiccated body to be exhumed and put on trial. Known as the Cadaver Synod, Formosus’ corpse was dressed in papal vestments and convicted accordingly.In the ruling, it was declared that Formosus was unworthy of the pontificate, and all acts and measures made under his papacy were declared null and void. Such was the case for three of his fingers, as they had been used in various “illegitimate” consecrations. So loathsome was Formosus’ body that clerics had it thrust into the River Tiber, only to be exhumed later by a monk and put onto trial–again–by Sergius III. This time, Formosus’ punishment was a beheading.

Beyond ordering the second Cadaver Synod on hapless Pope Formosus, Sergius III is best known for being the harbinger of harlots, transforming the papacy into what many historians dub the ‘pornacracy’, and ordering the murder of at least one of his papal predecessors. In 904, it’s reported that the power-lusting Sergius ordered the strangulation murder of Antipope Christopher and Pope Leo V, though the historical validity of the latter is still shrouded in a bit of a mystery.

In between his bouts of bloodsport, Sergius still found time for love with his 15-year-old mistress Marozia. This tryst resulted in the birth of their illegitimate son, future Pope John XI. And with the exorbitant amount of power Marozia and her mother Theodora had on Sergius, some believed that the papal post became little more than a whorehouse.

At a mere 18 years old upon his introduction to the papacy, Pope John XII treated his position with a similar level of maturity. Known to have converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter’s Basilica and to have just slept with a lot of women in general, John XII gives a new, somewhat sinister definition to a youthful libido.

But the pontifical party didn’t stop there; John XII was known to have invoked pagan gods when playing dice, made toasts with the devil and to have maimed and mutilated those who opposed him. Historians speculate that it was John’s philandering ways that contributed to his demise. In 964, some report that he was beaten by the spouse of a woman with whom John was sleeping. Three days later, and without confession, John XII died.

An emblem of perhaps the lowest point for the papacy, Alexander VI (of Borgia fame) literally bought and forced his way into clerical office. Speculated to have a strange, borderline incestuous relationship with his daughter, Lucrezia, Alexander VI is reported to have fathered at least seven illegitimate children, many of whom he supported with church endowments.

Indiscriminate with his and the church’s money, when funds ran low Alexander would up the number of cardinals in exchange for money and implement outlandish and false charges on the wealthy. Typically, he’d have them jailed or murdered (whichever was easiest for allocating funds), all while stealing their money. The craziest aspect of Alex, though, was how the de Medicis–also known for their unscrupulous behavior–described him. Said one upon Alexander’s entrance: “Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all.”

A lot can happen in a year, especially when an individual has quite a bit of power. To illustrate that, one needs not look much further than Pope Stephen VI. A Roman of the powerful Spoleto family, Stephen’s papacy peaked with the macabre Cadaver Synod and ended with his imprisonment and strangulation a mere seven months later. Compelled either by his mother, Algetruda, or Emperor Lambert, Stephen commanded a Cadaver Synod to an unwilling Roman clergy regarding Pope Formosus.

Inextricable from the politics that defined the papacy during that time, the pontificate tried Formosus for perjury and remaining a bishop after being deposed, among other things. As expected, the hyperbolic event and Stephen’s frankly bizarre punishment of a corpse that January caused quite a fatal stir. After being imprisoned for several months, Stephen’s short reign as an impious pope ended with asphyxiation.

When one is described by a saint as a “a demon from hell in disguise of a priest,” it is fairly obvious that this individual didn’t lead the most savory of lives. This can readily be said about Pope Benedict IX, who is primarily remembered today for being the only man to have served the papacy for three discontinuous periods and to have actually sold his office. Somewhat analogous to a nagging cough, Benedict’s persistent uncertainty regarding his pontifical post inspired the ire of many.

First leaving his position in 1044 for money, Benedict return to reign for a month in 1045, only to sell his office again (to his Godfather) possibly in order to marry his cousin. His final resurgence to the papacy was met with much adversity, as Benedict was eventually forced out of Rome. His stints in power were rather seedy, seeing as Benedict was accused of rape, adultery, routine homosexuality and bestiality. Said Pope Victor III, “His life as a pope was so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

The man strikes me as a totalitarian sadist.

He was brilliant. He routinely reminded everyone of his humility and his reluctance to wield power, all the while carefully transforming Geneva, step by step, from a republic to a dictatorship where he held total and complete power.

I don’t know - to me the ruthless administration of the land, financial malfeasance and political maneuvering were/are still crime enough, in light of their station.

It is not much different than my frustration with the political class we are struggling to unseat today. I see any “representative” who is supposed to be (but is decidedly NOT) upholding the principles that our Founder’s fought and died for to be more contemptible than, any who, while still a patriot, may succumb instead, to other sins.

Possibly, because even though I am not Catholic, I do still hold the Church in high regard - so for a pope, (or worse, several in succession!) who is regarded as St. Peter’s successor, to exhibit greed, deception and unbridled pride are plenty bad enough for me, lol.

Thanks much for your replies, to me, and to others, because I have been provided with even more information to follow up on, which is my favorite way to start working on learning something new ; )

May God keep watch, FRiend.
Tatt

I don’t know - to me the ruthless administration of the land, financial malfeasance and political maneuvering were/are still crime enough, in light of their station.

Which is why they were bad Popes. My point is, I guess, is that if someone is a thief or a liar or a bully then they should be called out for theft, deception and bullying - instead of being accused of murders and rapes and piracy on the high seas instead.

so for a pope, (or worse, several in succession!) who is regarded as St. Peter’s successor, to exhibit greed, deception and unbridled pride are plenty bad enough for me

I agree, but since He brings good out of evil, I think the good that He has brought out of their evil is to remind us that even Popes are mere men and that the value is in the office and not in its holders.

Much like the Founders upheld the principle that good governments are founded not on fickle men but on just laws.

Got it :) Thank you for your clarification on the article, and at the risk of heading down another road, right before the convention gets back under way - my whole point of view on “bad popes” is further muddied by the idea that in order to be a bad pope, other people had to be party to his getting in office, AND to his STAYING : /

Sometimes discussions like this really pinpoint my thoughts about what it means to me to be an American, and how differently we view the world...growing up in a nation where, for most of our history, we truly aspired to be a nation of laws, and because of that, there were few places where evil openly ruled over anyone, any community, or any industry - because people truly believed in the protection of the rule of law. People believed if they could expose that evil, that it would not be allowed to continue.

I pray that Condi was right last night. I pray that we will return to our foundations, to once again become a nation where your success is not determined by who you are, or where you are from, but by who you strive to be, and where you want to go.

Thanks again FRiend, and may God bless you and yours, and may He guide this nation.
Tatt

before I believed what someone said about the "dark ages", I'd check where the story came from...lots of "black legends" made up by the reformers of various sorts (both catholic and protestant) about those days, and most of these legends weren't written down until 300 to 600 years later.

It's sort of like saying the legends of King Arthur (500 ad) were true because Geoffrey of Monmonth said they were, a couple hundred year later. True he based his stories on "evidence" which he conveniently lost or couldn't find, nor has anyone else found since then. Same here...

A better source would be the teaching company's article on the papacy link.

these bad popes led to the spread of Islam? Sorry, that’s nonsense. If that were true, Islam would have conquered western Europe or Italy.

There is a better argument that because the Popes took over the civil administration of Italy that they saved western Europe from Islam...

The Spread of Islam was in areas ruled by Constantinople, not Rome. Now, if you want to blame the ex hooker Theodora and her spouse, fine, but not the popes, who didn’t have a lot of influence in that area.

I don’t know - to me the ruthless administration of the land, financial malfeasance and political maneuvering were/are still crime enough, in light of their station.

Immediately after conferring St Peter's station, Jesus rebuked him with "Get behind Me, Satan!" Contrary to popular belief, the Popes are not infallible in every utterance but only under certain, very particular, circumstances. Otherwise, they are men with a special office and commission. They sin and confess their sins as we all do.

Just because some sins are more public and scandalous than others doesn't make them greater sins in the economy of salvation.

God bless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.