Pope Alexander VI's Dealings with the French

[This is part of Catholic Analysis' special series on Pope Alexander VI. This part, the sixth, grapples with Alexander's interesting relations with the French. Read the fifth part.]

With a devout personality, encouraged by his friend, St. Francis of Paola, King Charles VIII was just the man to bring about needed reforms. He was quirky, but responsible, and he was a little naive, but full of ideas. There was only one snag to him: Charles had been taught to covet Naples, and he saw it as a gateway to further expansion. He wanted Alexander to give it to him, but the pope, wanting to carve it out as a distinctly Italian state, refused. [1]

To advance his goals, he built up one of the greatest fighting forces that the world has ever seen. His military was "provisioned by a large quantity of artillery of a type never before seen in Italy": he had his special, signature cannonry. [2]

On his way to the Middle East, the king was determined to depose or forcefully reform Alexander, whom he had been led to believe was immoral. In this, the king was encouraged by Ascanio and Giuliano, the two most influential cardinals. The former was an opportunist, and the latter retained jealousy. The Orsini, in their typical level of bravery, quickly surrendered to the king use of their nearby fortress, known today as the Castello Orsini-Odescalchi (in Bracciano). [3] Other cardinals proved similarly helpful. For their treachery, Alexander would have been well within his rights to later demand their execution, but he pardoned them instead. The Ferrarese ambassador, Beltrando Costabili, recorded what the pope said of this: "I could easily have had the Vice-Chancellor and Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere killed; but I did not wish to harm any one, and I pardoned fourteen of the nobles." [4]

Luckily, Alexander managed to maneuver himself into a position of safety. As turmoil brewed, he sought assistance from the Germans, but was denied. He fled to the Castel Sant'Angelo, deciding to defend it himself, prepared to "stand on its walls in full canonicals, carrying the Blessed Sacrament". [5]

Meanwhile, the king was reluctant to actually lay siege to the holy city, in contrast to the bloodlust of much of his army. His army, frustrated, ransacked and confiscated houses for their own quartering. They also targeted our rabbinical brethren, for whom Alexander, in response to abuses in the Spanish Inquisition, had made safer living arrangements. [6]

At their first meeting, Charles rushed to genuflect before Alexander; the pope, in turn, reacted informally, stopping the king (as St. Peter did for St. Cornelius, in Acts 10), charming him with humility. These attitudes continued until, finally, the pope granted Charles passage through his States and Charles swore obedience in return. [7]

"..[T]he most heroic of the popes could not have sustained the stability of the Holy See at this crucial moment with greater firmness. From the crumbling ramparts of St. Angelo, the defen[s]es of which were still incomplete, he looked calmly into the mouth of the French cannon; with equal intrepidity he faced the cabal of della Rovere's cardinals, clamorous for his deposition. At the end of a fortnight it was Charles who capitulated." [8]

Alexander and Charles, on 15 January 1495, reached a formal agreement, the first clause of which read, "Our Holy Father shall remain the king's good father, and the king shall remain a good and devoted son of Our Holy Father." [9] Rome was bruised, but saved, and the king wanted to "smother [Alexander's] feet with kisses". [10]

While Charles went on to cause trouble elsewhere (especially in Naples), he did so with good intentions and a clear conscience. It can be argued that this heir to St. Louis' throne took to heart Savonarola's cautionary words: "If wickedness should by your means be increased, know that the power given to you from on high will be shattered." [11]

Nevertheless, Alexander had to respond. Later that year, he asked the newly-formed "Holy League" to reclaim papal territories taken by Charles, after efforts for diplomacy had failed. They did so.

Charles died a somewhat broken man, and in an "embarrassing" way: he struck his head on the top of a door and died soon after. He was interesting, even in death. Most unfortunately, he never fulfilled his (and Alexander's) dream of reclaiming Jerusalem for Christendom.

Then, there was King Louis XII. Of strong will, and of equally strong physicality, his reign was a mixed bag. His relationship with Joan of Valois was annulled – she went on to found a monastic order (confirmed by Alexander) and was eventually canonized. He warmly welcomed Cesare, the papal representative, agreeing to help the young man find a wife, give him a position in the French army, and bestow on him entry into the Order of St. Michael. [12] Also, Charles began and Louis constructed a beautiful Roman church, the Trinità dei Monti, to the pope's delighted approval, and, to this day, it remains under the patronage of the French government. Finally, by helping Alexander occupy key territories, he – maybe inadvertently – greatly increased the temporal power of the Church, even over and above his own. (Machiavelli greatly criticized him for that!) [13] It is truly a shame that this monarch was a Gallican; that, regrettably, must preclude any fervent support.

Ascanio, tellingly, publicly protested the new king's closeness to the Borgias, no doubt out of fear that Louis, with a better claim to Milan, would oust the Sforzas (which he did). Alexander "shouted in reply that it had been Ascanio's brother who had first brought the French into Italy" and, in the heat of the argument, threatened to throw him into the Tiber River. That shut the belligerent cardinal up. [14]

As for Alexander: "..[S]urely no pontificate could more strongly illustrate the importance of territorial independence of the Papacy." [15] This was one of his main goals all along, actually, and this is further evidenced by the fact that he wisely started fortifying defenses, including those of his Castel, early on. [16]

4. Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages, Vol. 6, p. 113

11. Michael de la Bedoyere, The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, p. 125

This part, the sixth, grapples with Alexander's interesting relations with the French

Alexander did indeed have "interesting relations;"

Of Alexander's many mistresses the one for whom passion lasted longest was a certain Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattani, born in 1442, and wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470, and she bore him four children whom he openly acknowledged as his own: Cesare (born 1475), Giovanni, afterwards duke of Gandia (born 1476) , Lucrezia (born 1480), and Goffredo or Giuffre (born 1481 or 1482). Five other children, Girolama, Isabella, Pedro-Luiz, Bernardo, and Laura, were of uncertain parentage.

For a period of time, before legitimizing his children after becoming Pope, Rodrigo pretended that his four children with Vannozza were his niece and nephews and that they were fathered by Vannozza's husbands.^{[citation needed]}

Before his elevation to the papacy, Cardinal Borgia's passion for Vannozza somewhat diminished, and she subsequently led a very retired life. Her place in his affections was filled, according to some, by the beautiful Giulia Farnese ("Giulia la Bella"), wife of an Orsini, but his love for his children by Vannozza remained as strong as ever and proved, indeed, the determining factor of his whole career. He lavished vast sums on them and lauded them with every honor. The atmosphere of Alexander's household is typified by the fact that his daughter Lucrezia apparently lived with Giulia.^[10]

He is an ancestor of virtually all royal houses of Europe, mainly the southern and western ones, for being the ancestor of Dona Luisa de Guzmán, wife of King John IV of Portugal, of the House of Braganza.

The debased state of the curia was a major scandal. Opponents such as the powerful demagogic Florentine friar Girolamo Savonarola launched invectives against papal corruption and appealed for a general council to confront the papal abuses. Alexander is reported to have been reduced to laughter when Savonarola's denunciations were related to him. Nevertheless, he appointed Sebastian Maggi to investigate the friar, and he responded on 16 October 1495:

It is important to keep in mind that, in Italy at the time, the Spanish were looked down upon. Thus, the prominent Italian families looked down on the Borgia family, and they resented their power, which they sought for themselves. This is, at least partially, why both Pope Callixtus III and Pope Alexander VI gave powers to family members whom they could trust.[25]

In these circumstances, Pope Alexander VI, feeling more than ever that he could only rely on his own kin, turned his thoughts to further family aggrandizement. He had annulled Lucrezia's marriage to Giovanni Sforza, who had responded to the suggestion that he was impotent with the unsubstantiated counter-claim that Pope Alexander VI and Cesare indulged in incestuous relations with Lucrezia, in 1497.[26] And, unable to arrange a union between Cesare and the daughter of King Frederick IV of Naples (who had succeeded Ferdinand II the previous year), he induced Frederick by threats to agree to a marriage between the Duke of Bisceglie, a natural son of Alfonso II, and Lucrezia. Cesare, after resigning his cardinalate, was sent on a mission to France at the end of the year, bearing a bull of divorce for the new French king Louis XII, in exchange for which he obtained the duchy of Valentinois (a duchy chosen because it was consistent with his already known nickname of Valentino), a promise of material assistance in his schemes to subjugate the feudal princelings of papal Romagna, and a marriage to a princess of Navarre.

Pope Alexander VI hoped that Louis XII's help would be more profitable to his house than that of Charles VIII had been. In spite of the remonstrances of Spain and of the Sforza, he allied himself with France in January 1499 and was joined by Venice. By autumn Louis XII was in Italy expelling Lodovico Sforza from Milan. With French success seemingly assured, the Pope determined to deal drastically with the Romagna, which although nominally under papal rule was divided into a number of practically independent lordships on which Venice, Milan, and Florence cast hungry eyes. Cesare, empowered by the support of the French, began to attack the turbulent cities one by one in his capacity as nominated gonfaloniere (standard bearer) of the church. But the expulsion of the French from Milan and the return of Lodovico Sforza interrupted his conquests, and he returned to Rome early in 1500 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI#Mistresses_and_family

Another alleges:

The man pictured above is the poster boy for Catholic debauchery. His name was Pope Alexander VI. He wasn't the first, nor the last, of a string of simply sinful popes. In fact if he had a trading card the back might read something like this:

"Achievements: Successfully started the world's first recorded crime family, sired at least four bastard children, hosted orgies within the walls of the Vatican, and shunned the poor in favor of flamboyant decadence.

Good Qualities: Severe loyalty to kith and kin (even to the point of almost plunging Italy into all out war just so his bastard children could have the life he wanted for them. Awe.)

Scandals: Still being accused of breaking up his daughter's marriage in favor if an incestuous relationship with himself, whispered to be involved in a few choice assassinations, and oh yes, there was that whole mistress and string of wild Vatican orgy parties...

God's Judgment: Death by slow intestinal bleeding." http://theophanes.hubpages.com/hub/Popes-Gone-Wild-What-the-Catholic-Church-Would-Rather-You-Forget

They also targeted our rabbinical brethren, for whom Alexander, in response to abuses in the Spanish Inquisition, had made safer living arrangements.

Sound like a spin that could be used in the future to imprison Christians.

In conferring the title "Catholic" upon Ferdinand and Isabella, 1495, Alexander VI. gave as one of the reasons the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1492. The institution of the Spanish Inquisition, which began its work twelve years before, was directed primarily against the conversos, people of Jewish blood and members of the Church who in heart and secret usage remained Jews. - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.viii.iv.html

The penalty of scourging was executed in public on the bodies of the victims, bared to the waist, by the public executioner. Women of 86 to girls of 13 were subjected to such treatment. Galley labor as a mode of punishment was sanctioned by Alexander VI., 1503. The sentence of perpetual imprisonment was often relaxed, either from considerations of mercy or for financial reasons. Up to 1488, there had been 5000 condemnations to lasting imprisonment

The king and queen issued the Alhambra Decree less than three months after the surrender of Granada. This was primarily a decision of Isabella, not her husband Fernando. That her confessor had just changed from the tolerant Hernando de Talavera to the very intolerant Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros suggests that Cisneros may well have had a role in Isabel's decision.^[10] In it, Jews were accused of trying "to subvert their holy Catholic faith and trying to draw faithful Christians away from their beliefs." These measures were not new in Europe.^[11]

Some Jews were only given four months and ordered to convert to Christianity or leave the country. Under the edict, Jews were promised royal "protection and security" for the effective three-month window before the deadline. They were permitted to take their belongings with them – except "gold or silver or minted money".^{[citation needed]}

The punishment for any Jew who did not convert or leave by the deadline was death without trial.^[1] The punishment for a non-Jew who sheltered or hid Jews was the confiscation of all belongings and hereditary privileges.

By the 14th century, most of the Iberian Peninsula (present-day Spain and Portugal) had been conquered by the Christian kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, Leon, Galicia, Navarre, and Portugal.

Overt hostility against Jews became more pronounced, finding expression in brutal episodes of violence and oppression. Thousands of Jews sought to escape these attacks by converting to Christianity; they were commonly called conversos, New Christians, or marranos. At first these conversions seemed an effective solution to the cultural conflict: many converso families met with social and commercial success. But eventually their success made these new Catholics unpopular with some of the clergy of the Church and royal hierarchies.

Other Spanish Jews (estimates range between 50,000 and 70,000)[citation needed] chose to avoid expulsion by conversion to Christianity. However, their conversion did not protect them from ecclesiastical hostility after the Spanish Inquisition came into full effect; persecution and expulsion were common. Many of these "New Christians" were eventually forced to either leave the countries or intermarry with the local populace by the dual Inquisitions of Portugal and Spain. Many settled in North Africa, Latin America [15] or elsewhere in Europe, most notably the Netherlands < /p>

"The edict [Alhambra Decree that had expelled the Jews] was formally rescinded on December 16, 1968." In 2014, the government of Spain passed a law allowing dual citizenship to Jewish descendants who apply, in order to "compensate for shameful events in the country’s past." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree

The consuls of Carcassonne in 1286 complained to the pope, the King of France, and the vicars of the local bishop against the inquisitor Jean Garland, whom they charged with inflicting torture in an absolutely inhuman manner, and this charge was no isolated one. The case of Savonarola has never been altogether cleared up in this respect. The official report says he had to suffer three and a half tratti da fune (a sort of strappado). When Alexander VI showed discontent with the delays of the trial, the Florentine government excused itself by urging that Savonarola was a man of extraordinary sturdiness and endurance, and that he had been vigorously tortured on many days (assidua quaestione multis diebus, the papal prothonotary, Burchard, says seven times) but with little effect. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Thus another of Matthew's attempt's at damage control, AKA "Catholic analysis," serves to expose the emperor's lack of clothes.

Hopefully, you read PAST that one point? The author was using some sarcasm to demonstrate the triumph of Roman Catholicism over the temporal powers in the world which led to the vast accumulation of wealth in existence STILL. From the link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm:

This was reflected in the multiplying erection of prestigious cathedrals, the opulence of the vestments of her prelates, the magnificence of her liturgy. Parallel with these grew unchecked worldly pride, also mounting greed for earthly riches. The two begot lack of charity, which turned soon into blatant intolerance.

Pagan temples were either closed, transformed into Christian shrines or demolished. Their properties were summarily added to the Church’s patrimony. The wealth of sundry religions was mercilessly expropriated, their clergy dismissed or persecuted, when not civilly or even physically obliterated. This transfer of political might made an easy transition into acquisitional power, the Roman Catholic Church set out in earnest to promote a policy of swift appropriation of real estate, of highly remunerative governmental posts, and even of speculative monetary and commercial enterprises.

Simultaneously with the accelerated growth of prestige, might and wealth, a new factor appeared on the scene amidst the ruins of the classic and the new emerging cultures: the monastic communities. These, the nuclei of which had come to the fore in original obscurity even when the Church was being persecuted, now transformed themselves into vast associations of pious individuals determined to ensure the spiritual riches of heaven by the abandonment of the riches of the earth. But now, unlike their predecessors the anonymous hermits who sustained themselves solely upon locusts and spring water, their imitators found it increasingly difficult to follow such a strict mode of life.

The legacies of the pious, the presents of parcels of expensive lands, estates and goods from newly converted highly placed pagan individuals, and the thanksgiving of repentant sinners, all contributed within a few centuries to make the monastic families in Europe the custodians of earthly riches and thus the administrators of earthly goods. This Church soon found herself not only on a par with the political and military potentates of this world, but equally a competitor with these amassers of wealth, from her high prelates, consorting with the high officials of the imperial court, to the monastic communities, springing up with ever more frequency in the semi-abandoned hamlets of former Roman colonies.

The early apostolic tradition of poverty became an abstraction; at most, a text for sermons or pious homilies.

And, while single heroic individuals preached and observed it, the Church Triumphant, congregating with the principalities of the earth, not only ignored it; she shamelessly stultified its injunctions, until, having become embarrassed by it, she brazenly disregarded it, abandoning both its theory and, even more, its practice.

That was very salacious, but in it are terrible misrepresentations. You should research how much of that has objective evidence behind it, especially in regards to Alexander's sexuality.

Oh yes, anything that impugns Rome is to be discredited. Certainly Borgia had some positive aspects to his character and did many things for the good of Rome, yet many immoral men do similar. But if you think the record is a terrible misrepresentation hen go Catholic sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is hardly suffers from a anti-Catholic bias.

The young Rodrigo had not yet definitely chosen his profession when the elevation of his uncle to the papacy (1455) opened up new prospects to his ambition. He was adopted into the immediate family of Callixtus and was known henceforward to the Italians as Rodrigo Borgia. Like so many other princely cadets, he was obtruded upon the Church, the question of a clerical vocation being left completely out of consideration. After conferring several rich benefices on him, his uncle sent him for a short year to study law at the University of Bologna...

the list of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies, and other dignities held by him, as enumerated by the Bishop of Modena in a letter to the Duchess of Ferrara (Pastor, History of the Popes, V, 533, English tr.) reads like the famous catalogue of Leporello ...

In his twenty-ninth year he drew a scathing letter of reproof from Pope Pius II for misconduct in Sienna which had been so notorious as to shock the whole town and court (Raynaldus Ann. eccl. ad. an. 1460, n. 31). Even after his ordination to the priesthood, in 1468, he continued his evil ways.

Towards 1470 began his relations with the Roman lady, Vanozza Catanei, the mother of his four children: Juan, Caesar, Lucrezia and Jofre, born, respectively according to Gregorovius (Lucrezia Borgia 13)... in 1474, 1476, 1480, and 1482...

Alexander issued a wise decree concerning the censorship of books, and sent the first missionaries to the New World. Notwithstanding these and similar actions, which might seem to entitle him to no mean place in the annals of the papacy, Alexander continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate (Pastor, op. cit., III, 449 152)...

The French invasion was the turning point in the political career of Alexander VI. It had taught him that if he would be safe in Rome and be really master in the States of the Church, he must curb the insolent and disloyal barons who had betrayed him in his hour of danger. Unfortunately, this laudable purpose became more and more identified in his mind with schemes for the aggrandizement of his family. There was no place in his programme for a reform of abuses. Quite the contrary; in order to obtain money for his military operations he disposed of civil and spiritual privileges and offices in a scandalous manner. He resolved to begin with the Orsini, whose treason at the most critical moment had reduced him to desperate straits...

Unsuccessful in obtaining for his family the possessions of the Orsini, the Pope now demanded the consent of his cardinals to the erection of Benevento, Terracina, and Pontecorvo into a duchy for the Duke of Gandia. Cardinal Piccolomini was the only member who dared protest against this improper alienation of the property of the Church...

after three days and nights passed without food or sleep, he appeared in consistory and proclaimed his determination to set about that reform of the Church "in head and members" for which the world had so long been clamouring. A commission of cardinals and canonists began industriously to frame ordinances which foreshadowed the disciplinary decrees of Trent. But they were never promulgated. Time gradually assuaged the sorrow and extinguished the contrition of Alexander. From now on Caesar's iron will was supreme law...

Alexander cannot be held responsible for the second "barbarian" invasion of Italy, but he was quick to take advantage of it for the consolidation of his temporal power and the aggrandizement of his family...

Alexander, still hale and vigorous in his seventy-third year, and looking forward to many mere years of reign, proceeded to strengthen his position by repleting his treasury in ways that were more than dubious.

The Sacred College now contained so many of his adherents and countrymen that he had nothing to fear from that quarter. He enjoyed and laughed at the scurrilous lampoons that were in circulation in which he was accused of incredible crimes, and took no steps to shield his reputation.

The most severe arraignments of Alexander, because in a sense official, are those of his Catholic contemporaries, Pope Julius II (Gregorovius, VII, 494) and the Augustinian cardinal and reformer, Aegidius of Viterbo, in his manuscript "Historia XX Saeculorum", preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. The Oratorian Raynaldus (d. 1677), who continued the semi-official Annals of Baronius, gave to the world at Rome (ad an. 1460, no. 41) the above-mentioned paternal but severe reproof of the youthful Cardinal by Pius II, and stated elsewhere (ad an. 1495, no. 26) that it was in his time the opinion of historians that Alexander had obtained the papacy partly through money and partly through promises and the persuasion that ho would not interfere with the lives of his electors. Mansi, the scholarly Archbishop of Lucca editor and annotator of Raynaldus, says (XI, 4155) that it is easier to keep silence than to write write moderation about this Pope. The severe judgment of the late Cardinal Hergenröther, in his "Kirchengeschichte", or Manual of Church History (4th. ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 982-983) is too well known to need more than mention...

So little have Catholic historians defended him that in the middle of the nineteenth century Cesare Cantù could write that Alexander VI was the only Pope who had never found an apologist. However, since that time some Catholic writers, both in books and periodicals, have attempted to defend him from the most grievous accusations of his contemporaries....

These and other works were occasioned, partly by a laudable desire to remove a stigma from the good repute of the Catholic Church, and partly by the gross exaggerations of Victor Hugo and others who permitted themselves all licence in dealing with a name so helpless and detested. It cannot be said, however, that these works have corresponded to their authors' zeal. Dr. Pastor ranks them all as failures.

Dr. Pastor considers that the publication of the documents in the supplement to the third volume of Thuasne's edition of the Diary of Burchard (Paris, 1883) renders "forever impossible" any attempts to save the reputation of Alexander VI. There is all the less reason, therefore, says Cardinal Hergenröther (op. cit., II, 583), for the false charges that have been added to his account, e.g. his attempt to poison Cardinal Adriano da Corneto and his incest relations with Lucrezia (Pastor, op. cit., III, 375, 450-451, 475). Other accusations, says the same writer, have been dealt with.... ...

On the other hand, while immoral writers have made only too much capital out of the salacious paragraphs scattered through Burchard and Infessura, there is no more reason now than in the days of Raynaldus and Mansi for concealing or perverting the facts of history. "I am a Catholic", says M. de l'Epinois (loc. cit.), "and a disciple of the God who hath a horror of lies. I seek the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth Although our weak eyes do not see at once the uses of it, or rather see damage and peril, we must proclaim it fearlessly." The same good principle is set forth by Leo XIII in his Letter of 8 September, 1889, to Cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and Hergenröther on the study of Church History: "The historian of the Church has the duty to dissimulate none of the trials that the Church has had to suffer from the faults of her children, and even at times from those of her own ministers." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01289a.htm

But it's great that you read this post, because people like you are my target audience! > Then it testifies to the degree of delusion your posts indicate, as you keep shooting yourself in the foot, as everyone i responded to exposed the specious nature of your RC apologetics.

Obviously, I've consulted The Catholic Encyclopedia. It's listed in the references for this article! I'm aware of the varying opinions, and that's what these pieces are for: to sift through them and determine what is most likely.

Oh, I forgot about this, translated what this most likely means is, "what is most likely in the interest of RC damage control." Nepotism is translated into "loyalty was a trait of the utmost importance to the isolated Borgia clan." Testimony against him is dealt with by declaring: "Rodrigo has been the victim of much undeserved calumny. At least three of his contemporary accusers never even met him!" As if that dismisses their sources and all others. But that he was "rumored to be quite handsome" is worth noting. And despite his well attested immorality, sexual and otherwise, your conclusion at the start of your series seems to determine what "is most likely:" "Of an essentially good character, he was a devout follower of Christ and the Madonna. He deserves better treatment." - http://catholicanalysis.org/2014/10/13/the-personality-of-pope-alexander-vi/

Next, fornication is rendered,

"He was “faithful through his life to [this] one woman”. After the births of their children and before he ascended to the Papacy, she was put away in luxurious accommodations and received provision for the rest of her life. She “agreed with the Cardinal about the need for her to live a life of retirement rather than presume on a position which would then have given far less scandal than at any other period of history”. She paints a picture of Rodrigo as anything but a “debauched man”- http://catholicanalysis.org/2014/10/14/the-borgia-family/

Yet even the papist protector you cite says,

It suggests that Rodrigo Borgia was, in principle, at least, faithful through his life to one woman." And that "he was discreet and dignified enough to send his mistress to Spain for the birth of the earlier children..." and "it suggests that the mother agreed with the Cardinal about the need for her to live a life of retirement..." (Bedoyere) [eph. mine.]

All of which is what these acts "suggests " to the papist, but what must be not allowed is that while caring somewhat for one women, he had more during his lifetime, and that as he had a number of children by Vanozza out of wedlock, he sent her away to avoid scandal, which she had little choice but to do, while most likely spending church funds on his mistress!

And rather than being objective the rest is so much an exercise in Protect the Pope apologetics, which cannot bear to mention almost anything negative about Borgia, using the existence of false allegation to dismiss the weight of the negative conclusions of other scholarship but much replying on other papal defenders, All of which is a result of disobedience to the admonition, "not to think of men above that which is written..." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Some of what you explain away may be true, but i hardly see you as having much credibility.

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.