• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pope Benedict IX?

Arcade22

Philosopher
Arcade22
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
7,733
Location
Sweden
Just read this:
The stories about Benedict's behavior reached heights comparable to the most notorious popes. He was accused of habitual sodomy and bestiality, and was said to have sponsored orgies where any available orifice was considered fair game. His excesses were so legendary that they helped prompt St. Peter Damian, a cloistered monk, to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular, with a special focus on how these practices had become rampant within the Catholic priesthood and even the papacy itself. In Liber Gomorrhianus (The Book of Gomorrah), Damian railed against homosexuality in explicit detail for more than 100 pages, lumping in masturbation and dry-humping for good measure. Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest."

...

Despite the impressive efforts of his predecessors, Benedict did manage to distinguish himself as an innovator in the annals of bad popery. Not only did he repeat almost every sin committed by previous popes, he came up with one shocking new twist that no one before or since has managed to replicate -- selling the papacy.
Click to expand...

http://rotten.com/library/bio/religion/popes/benedict-ix/

How much of this is exaggerate myth or Slander by his enemies?
 
While the Catholic Encyclopedia omits the more lurid sexual claims it does describe him as "was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter" and substantiates many of the other claims in the Rotten article. It cites the Liber Pontificalis as its main source which has been subject to some doubt as a valid source due to [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica] redaction and bias.[/FONT]
 
Arcade22 said:
How much of this is exaggerate myth or Slander by his enemies?
Click to expand...

We're talking about a pope between the 9th and 11th centuries. Where exactly is the stuff that could be considered slanderous?
 
geni said:
We're talking about a pope between the 9th and 11th centuries. Where exactly is the stuff that could be considered slanderous?
Click to expand...

Well i assumed, apparently wrongly, that since the RCC is pretty conservative now they would have been extremely conservative back then. Seems pretty absurd that an group that claims the moral high-ground had leaders comparable to Caligula.
 
Piety was for the meager back then Arcade; Pope's were the Rockn'Roll stars of their time back then...
 
Arcade22 said:
Well i assumed, apparently wrongly, that since the RCC is pretty conservative now they would have been extremely conservative back then. Seems pretty absurd that an group that claims the moral high-ground had leaders comparable to Caligula.
Click to expand...

Being conservative is no defense against carnality and rank absurdity.
 
Arcade22 said:
Well i assumed, apparently wrongly, that since the RCC is pretty conservative now they would have been extremely conservative back then. Seems pretty absurd that an group that claims the moral high-ground had leaders comparable to Caligula.
Click to expand...

At that point the position of pope was pretty much just another part of the political games played between italian families.

There were probably perfectly harmless parish priests around but beyond that. The higher positions were highly political. The monks well there is a reason that the Cistercians split off from the Benedictines around 1098.
 
This is back when kings would institute new popes, just, you know, because. This is back when priests were writing love poems to married women in the form of psalms because no one could read, and the song sounds religious. I have a small collection of snuff porn from that era (oddly enough in a textbook).

Yeah....This isn't that surprising. :p
 
Arcade22 said:
Well i assumed, apparently wrongly, that since the RCC is pretty conservative now they would have been extremely conservative back then. Seems pretty absurd that an group that claims the moral high-ground had leaders comparable to Caligula.
Click to expand...

Extremely conservative these days means professing a hard line on morality during the day, then spending one's night trolling the glory holes in airport bathrooms, snorting cocaine off of strippers bare backsides during all night parties, and other such innocent and wholesome diversions. Why should the good old days of one of the classic good ol' boy organizations be any different?
 
Exaggeration of a few foibles based on hatred. :rolleyes: So what else is new?
 
Arcade22 said:
Well i assumed, apparently wrongly, that since the RCC is pretty conservative now they would have been extremely conservative back then. Seems pretty absurd that an group that claims the moral high-ground had leaders comparable to Caligula.
Click to expand...

New to the planet, are you? Those travel brochures never do tell quite the whole story, do they? :p

The current "conservatism" of any modern body or group has never been a guarantee that the members of that body or group will all display a consistent, uniform standard of morality. Humans have never been made that way. Those we might consider immoral or unethical have always been drawn to power, because power better allows them to both enjoy and hide their immorality.

Religiosity is a great place to hide, because people naively expect you to be a decent person if you choose a life in service to a deity. The truth of the matter is that the really decent people know they are prone to errors of judgment, and won't take on such a position, because they don't feel worthy, and are honest about it. Thus, ironically, the best man or woman for the job often can't be found in it, precisely for the reasons they are the best for the job. :boggled:

There's never been a human institution that hasn't been fraught with fraud, abuse, secrets, and lies. That's because all human institutions are full of humans.

[ETA: and of course I'm speaking in broadly general terms. There are good people in our institutions, too. Most people are actually neither one nor the other, eternally and consistently, to be honest.]
 
Last edited:
geni said:
We're talking about a pope between the 9th and 11th centuries. Where exactly is the stuff that could be considered slanderous?
Click to expand...

It does not sound too unusual to me, try check out some of the others.
I think the pretence of piousness is a rather new thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom