Talk:List of sexually active popes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Shouldn't the title be something more appropriate like- Non-Celibate Popes????

[edit] [Pope Leo VIII]

I've tried to find any evidence to support the accusation that this pope died during an act of adultery, at least none from a reputable source. Would the author, or another care to provide a reference? Oliver Keenan 12:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) (PS - I don't necessarily disbelieve you!)

Is it some joke or a serious article? VfD? Halibutt 21:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Several of these are verified by the articles on the popes in question and Pornocracy, so i doubt it


Looks serious enough to me, and a good proof that even Popes are only human... 8-)

Should an Antipope (since an antipope, by definition, is not the Pope) be counted in this article? Iceberg3k 21:47, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

"An Antipope is one whose claim to being Pope is the result of a disputed or contested election. These antipopes were usually in opposition to a specific person chosen by the papal electors (since the Middle Ages, the college of cardinals). Some self-appointed leaders of smaller churches are also called "antipopes.""

from the antipope article :P

The term 'Anti-pope' is of course a POV assessment and not an uncontroversial statement. History, as always, is written by subsequent winners. No-one now labelled an 'anti-pope' by the Vatican ever considered himself to be one - nor did his followers (who amounted to half of Christendom during the great schism).--Doc Glasgow 02:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it is a matter of historiography who's an anti-Pope and most of the time it is fairly easy to decide. Most of the time (the Great Schism is of course the great exception) it was quite clear during that time who the anti-Pope was (Of course, he himself would think otherwise). But it is no matter for POV complaints, unless historians disagree on the classification. But I haven't heard of that. Str1977 23:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popes active before mandatory celibacy

Should this article also include those who became popes prior to when celibacy was mandated? For instance, Peter was married, so he most likely would qualify.--Benfergy 22:09, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I also thought the same when I saw the article. But I'm no expert. Andjam 04:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine!!

The article states "According to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the pope (along with other clergy) is expected to be celibate, and is expected to be chaste as well." This is factually incorrect because clerical celibacy is not a doctrine. It is a discipline, imposed on priests of the Latin Rite, and some *BUT NOT ALL* of the Eastern Catholic Churches. In some of the Eastern Churches, married men may be ordained to the priesthood. (But, a single man, once ordained, cannot marry afterward.)

(EDIT -- I just made a correction to above noted sentence in the article, 19 Apr 2005, 18:02 EDIT)

Also it should be noted that for a single person, chastity and celibacy are the same thing. But for a married person, chastity is faithfulness to one's spouse, and responsible use of the gift of sexuality. WhFastus

[edit] Neutrality?

The whole premise of this article seems to be against the popish.

  • From the policy: "The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." How is this article not neutral? I would remind you that stating a fact, or what someone believes to be true are typically inherently NPOV. --Dmcdevit 01:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely, though, a simple list of the other popes, as presumed "non-active", would be deemed a waste fo space/bandwidth. Would not a list of homosexual Kings of England be equally indicatble as biased, and yet the English discuss such things openly, and in learned journals. --Simon Cursitor 07:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it then. Please don't use bandwidth as a reason why the article should not exist. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there an affirmative raison d'etre for this article based on encyclopedic standards? I sure for the life of me can't think of one. I assume then that no-one will object to my making entries for all of the following sub-lists of the papacy: List of all the Popes who were Celibate, List of all the Popes who were Saints, List of all the Popes who were Martyrs, List of all the Popes who were Vegetarians, List of all the Popes who were Left Handed, etc. I believe that this entry would not survive scrutiny under the Wikipedia Trivia Policy, AND is appears to be intended solely for prurient interest/antagonize Catholic sentiment and therefore object to it in the strongest terms. Don't mean to be anti-intellectual, but there's nothing intellectual about bias. Carlos_X (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning this up

I've cleaned it up a bit, maintaining NPOV. A lot of material that I haven't yet sourced has been commented out for now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexander VI and Paul III were pretty clearly sexually active, although I'm not sure of the accuracy of the specific allegations made in the article. Both of them had well-known, acknowledged bastards. Their presence on the list shouldn't be commented out, even if the specific allegations currently made are a bit dubious. john k 14:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having recently read Borgia articles, I was surprised Pope Alexander VI was not listed in this article. The long article on him seems to make him a main candidate. Is the problem that the sources of Pope Alexander VI aren't good enough? -R. S. Shaw 00:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've only commented them out because this article is on VfD and I want people considering deletion to see an article that has obviously compiled to reasonable encyclopedic standards. John, if you're offering to help with the cleanup, go for it. R. S. Shaw, if you can write a section on Pope Alexander VI and cite sources, fine. The quality of the sources isn't really an issue--an encyclopedia is supposed to be used as a pointer for further research, not an authority on a subject. If we say "A says B screwed C" that is factual and NPOV and tells the reader that he needs to find a bit more about A before he believes anything about B and C. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused here. It seems to me that any pope whose own article mentions his sexual activity can be listed here without any need to cite further sources. john k 17:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well we can't rely on the content of other articles always remaining the same, and I don't think it's unreasonable to mention the source especially when the reliability of some of the sources is regarded as extremely questionable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is the reliability of this any more questionable than anything else? Of course, sourcing would be nice, but I see no reason to remove information which one has no reason to think is false, simply because it is not sourced. That Alexander VI had illegitimate children is simply a fact, and it is also a fact that Giulia Farnese was his mistress while he was pope, and it is a fact that there were wild rumors of his orgies and so forth while he was pope, and of incestuous activities with his daughter. You can't just assert that the information is "extremely questionable" and not provide any basis for that. john k 05:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

On April 27, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of sexually active popes. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 09:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special Note

On May 9th, 2005, this article was the featured link on Cruel Site of the Day, a webpage famous for its black humor. Here is its description:

  • Pope Randy the First: Up to the 16th century, there were five sexually active popes, according to the infinite monkeys of Wikipedia. Three of them got it in before celibacy became the rule.

(moved from the article itself — Dan | Talk 03:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Quite probably untrue but worth checking up on just for the fun of it

A list from an anonymous website:

  • Pope Leo VII (936-9) died of a heart attack while having sex.
  • Pope John VII (955-64) was bludgeoned to death by the cuckolded husband of the woman he was having sex with at the time.
  • Pope John XIII (965-72) was also murdered by an irate husband during the act.
  • Pope Paul II (1467-71) allegedly died while being sodomized by a page boy.

Only the last is mentioned in the article on the pope, and the first appears to reference [[Pope Leo VIII], not VII. Anyone care to check up on the rest? :) porges 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does Catholic church law really require papal celibacy?

Conventionally the College of Cardinals elects one of its own members pope, and for almost a century only bishops have been allowed to become cardinals. But:

  • No church law says only a bishop can be elected pope. The Cardinals could elect a married layman. If he accepts the job, the Cardinal Dean would ordain him a bishop and then he would be a married pope not under a vow of celibacy.
  • Eastern-rite Catholic priests are often married me; the cardinals could similarly elect one of those.

Michael Hardy 22:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] article conflates celibacy and abstinence

As used with reference to the priesthood, "celibacy" means not being married. So with the exception of Peter, the popes mentioned here were all celibate, unless of course they were secretly married (but no suggestion is made of this). The intro should be changed to avoid this confusion, which comes from the more recent meaning of "celibate" in the sense of "sexually abstinent".

Of course that's not to say that the church allows popes to have unmarried sexual partners, but that's because it doesn't allow that to anybody; it's not a special thing for priests. --Trovatore 07:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Celibate" is a word which in modern usage has developed ambiguity. In the context of religion, it always includes the voluntary renunciation of marriage not because marriage is evil, because marriage is good in itself, but to dedicate onself completely to the service of God.
A contemporary usage of the word "celibate" refers to a voluntary, often temporary, renunciation of sexual activity by a person who is single. The proper term to apply here is "sexually abstinent" or "chaste".
"Chaste" refers to the proper use of human sexuality, which is abstinence is when one is single, and sexual intercourse in the married state. patsw 02:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy dispute

I don't think the Catholic Church requires papal celibacy. It does require the pope to continue to be celibate if he was a clergyman under a vow of clerical celibacy. But the church does not even require celibacy of all priests (most Eastern Rite priests are married) and moreover, the cardinals can elect a married layman pope. Michael Hardy 19:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Aren't all eastern rite bishops unmarried, though? It is my understanding that one cannot be married and be a bishop. john k 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, BUT: the rules say the cardinals can elect any Catholic man to the papacy. That clearly means they can elect a married man. He doesn't have to be a bishop at the time of election (he has to get ordained to the episcopate before assuming office though). If they elect a married man, and he accepts the job, and the head of the College of Cardinals ordains him to the episcopate, then there's a married pope. If it is objected that they wouldn't ordain him a bishop because he's married, I find it hard to believe that that possibility got overlooked when rules were written that said they could choose any Catholic male. Michael Hardy 19:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...this is all rather silly, it must be said, as it is irrelevant. Are there any popes who were married when they became pope? The Church does require chastity, and if no married man was ever elected, than all popes would also have been celibate. john k 04:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, at least one pope was married when he became pope. You clearly have not looked at the article or you'd know that. Michael Hardy 21:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Which pope was that? The article makes an unsourced claim that "some popes were married." This seems hardly good enough for you to be insulting me over. At any rate, early popes hardly count, because the rules were different then, and the "priests not married" rule only became clear cut in the western church relatively late. john k 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please learn to read!! The article EXPLICITLY STATES which one! Sheesh. Michael Hardy 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

... and now I've rearranged the list so they're in chronological order. Michael Hardy 01:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Saint Peter? Are you kidding me?? john k 01:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
To elaborate: I did miss the listing of Peter on the page. That said, I knew that St. Peter was married, and I have to say that he hardly counts. You completely ignored my point about early points not really counting. Certainly St. Peter, for whom we don't even have any independent evidence that he was ever in Rome, doesn't count. john k 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether the Catholic position on Peter is true is almost irrelevant. This dispute is about what the Catholic position is on married popes. Clearly the Catholic position says at least one pope was married. They have clear rules saying any Catholic man can be elected pope. That would obviously include married men. The present pope and all popes of recent centuries were under a vow of celibacy before they were pope, so their celibacy does not result from a rule saying popes have to be celibate. Michael Hardy 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know what we're arguing about here. I am not saying there is a rule that popes have to be celibate. I understand that the official rule m ay say that "any Catholic man can be elected pope." In spite of that, every pope has to be ordained as a priest, and, so far as I know, there have been no married priests in the western church for a very, very long time. The fact that Peter was married is irrelevant because he was pope long before the time when there was a rule about priestly celibacy. And the chances that a married man who is not a priest will be elected pope at any time in the foreseeable future are slim to nil. So what's the point here? john k 04:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the article begins by saying that a rule requires the pope to be celibate. I am questioning that assertion. Michael Hardy 19:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, could I just point out that we don't actually know whether St Peter was married or was a widower at the time that he became Pope. (That is, assuming that he did become Pope, but I understand that some would have the POV that he didn't.) His mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible; his wife is not. There is a possibility that she was already dead at the time that he became a disciple of Jesus. There is also a minor tradition (not an official teaching) that he left her (not as a desertion, but with her full blessing) to follow Christ fully. That's not an unknown concept. The Shakers renounced sex, which is why they relied on converts and adoption in order to continue their existence. And Peter does mention somewhere having left everything for Jesus. Anyway, the line "But it was not always so; some popes were married", which seems to have been added by Michael Hardy on 31 October, is not based on verifiable evidence, since the existence of a mother-in-law does not prove the existence of a living wife. All we really know is that some popes had been married. I think that sentence needs to go. Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not strictly true that "there have been no married priests in the western [RC] church for a very, very long time". Married Anglican and Episcopal priests who convert to Roman Catholicism are allowed to continue as priests. I don't know how many priests are in that situation, but I'm pretty sure there are some. --Trovatore 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
We're moving off the topic of the article but I want to provide some accurate information. Each priest from the Anglican, Episcopal, or Lutheran Church who is received into the Catholic faith and married needs to individually apply first to be ordained and then to be dispensed from the requirement of celibacy. These two permissions are not given automatically and while in many cases they are, I know of men who upon reflection either sought not be ordained in the Catholic Church or sought to be ordained and told that it was not possible. The general rule of celibacy has not been relaxed or modified. patsw 19:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks. But I don't really see how it's supposed to work in that time sequence. How can you get a dispensation for an existing fact? They're already married, and as I understand it the RCC recognizes those marriages as valid and indissoluble, so celibacy is impossible for those individuals, short of murder. Do you really mean they get a dispensation to act as priests, celebrate mass and so on, in spite of being married? --Trovatore 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Their current marriage is valid, thats's not disputed and there's no requirement with this dispensation that they live apart or as brother and sister. The existing fact of their marriage is not disputed. On the other hand, the ordination they had in their former denomination is considered null and void by the Catholic Church. If and when they are ordained in the Catholic Church it is done so unconditionally. They need a dispensation (an individual waiver of a general rule) in order to be ordained. They then need a formal assignment from a bishop (called incardination) to act as a priest. In the Catholic Church, being a priest doesn't confer a right to act as a priest without being given a specific assignment by a bishop. patsw 21:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, if a married man is ordained without having received the dispense, is the ordination really invalid? IMHO it is only illicit but still valid. Str1977 23:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
To clarify a point: although an Anglican priest's ordination is not considered valid by the Catholic Church, some other churches' ordinations are considered valid by the Catholic Church, so if a married priest from one of those churches becomes a Catholic, he's a married Catholic priest, without any need to get ordained by a Catholic bishop (he would still need the cardination in order to practice, since all Catholic priests need that). Michael Hardy 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To weigh in on the original question: there is no specific celibacy for the Pope, only the standard celibacy for every priest in the Latin rite (from which some are dispensed). In the Eastern churches (whether in union with Rome or not) and originally in the Western church too celibacy was no condition for ordination, in other words: both celibate and married men were ordained. Those celibate at the time of their ordination were not allowed to marry after their ordination, those married at that time remained married. Under these conditions, a married man could be elected pope without any problems. After celibacy was made a condition for ordination (first in the 4th, but effectively in the 11th century) things become more difficult. Of course, the cardinals can elect any male Catholic to the papacy, including a married man. Then there'd be a married Pope who would have to be dispensed from the condition of celibacy. But no non-cardinal has been elected since 1378 and it is unlikely that this will happen in the future. Str1977 23:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of the article title

Shouldn't the title be "List of popes who were accused of being sexually active?" By the Wikipedia standards, only an conviction or a confession (an acknowledgement of paternity, for example) would make these allegations facts. Should the list be reduced to reflect the popes who were convicted or confessed, should the title be changed to reflect what's been listed? patsw 01:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of these people acknowledged paternity. Beyond that, on what basis do you say that "only a conviction or a confession" makes allegations facts? The only issue is whether or not respected reference sources say that a particular pope was sexually active. If they do, we can report it as a fact. john k 04:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"Trust me, I looked it up somewhere" is not good enough for verifiability. If you, I, or anyone can find a respected reference source with the listing and cite it, the listing will stay in, if not it goes. I will mark what I find with an indication of whether it is disputed or not according to the source I find. patsw 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The illegitimate children of Paul III and Alexander VI are listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I believe the information on Sergius III is incorrect - our Marozia article notes Pope John XI as her son by Sergius. At any rate, again, nothing on this page is even the slightest bit controversial - all of the popes listed are well-known for their sexual activities. BTW here's a site which attempts to list all papal child-having activities. It's obviously biased, but it cites numerous sources at the bottom. (It also lists a number of married popes - I'd forgotten about Antipope Felix V, who was a former Duke of Savoy.) The level of verification being demanded here is oddly high - for most of these people, it is simply common knowledge. john k 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the citations?

This article started over a year ago and there are no cites. I own some of the references already listed and some other reference books on the papacy not listed. I'll identify which books report what and the degree of evidence of the accusation. Any pope listed for which I cannot find a specific reference will be a candidate for deletion. patsw 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no real controversy about any of the popes listed. As far as I'm concerned, the problem with this article is that there aren't nearly enough popes listed. For instance, Pope Clement VII is normally said to have been the father of Alessandro de' Medici. Pope John X is also normally said to have been sexually active, and Pope Pius IV, Pope Pius II, Pope Innocent VIII, also apparently had illegitimate children. Pope Hormisdas was apparently the father of Pope Silverius. I would guess that many other of the popes of the 10th and 11th centuries could be included in the list. john k 05:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a complete citation for Pope John XII. As time permits I will identify the rest and then we can discuss any remaining popes in the list. patsw 05:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Benedict IX, I'm having trouble coming up with any specific citation. Every source on the fellow says his "licentious" and "dissolute" lifestyle led to his deposition, which is certainly euphemistic, but I can't find anything from fully reliable sources which is more detailed than that. john k 07:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A citiation for the rule of celibacy in the first section would be, Abbott, E. A History of Celibacy, 2001:108 (Lutterworth Press: Cambridge)

[edit] Problematic

(In this context, celibate is not synonymous with sexually abstinent; celibate means not married.)

Err...this is true. But all clergy are expected to be chaste, which means "sexually abstinent, unless married." The way the article is currently laid out, it implies that it is not against the rules for popes or other clergy to fail to be sexually abstinent outside marriage. john k 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In Christian morality, everyone, clergy and lay, is called to chastity according to their state in life. This is why there isn't a promise made to be chaste in order to be ordained a priest or bishop. The promise is to voluntarily renounce marriage.
Since it's relevant to this article, celibate does not mean unmarried. A person who is celibate has made the decision to be unmarried now and in the future. In the context of religion, it's done in a public and definitive way to dedicate one to the service of God. patsw 06:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
No, that's a vow or oath of celibacy. Celibacy per se is just the state of being unmarried. --Trovatore 06:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Everyone is called to chastity. But my understanding was that clergy take oaths of chastity, poverty, and obedience, not vows of celibacy. They have to remain celibate, but that's not part of the vow. But perhaps I'm wrong. john k 06:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Trovatore is incorrect. In general usage a person who is not committed to remaining single, i.e. a person who is dating, engaged, open to dating, etc. is not celibate.
Patsw is incorrect. See [1]. --Trovatore 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster is incorrect, but thanks for adding the link. I can understand now how a person could consider himself or herself celibate until the very instant when he or she exchanges wedding vows. patsw 17:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
One cannot be an involuntary celibate in the same sense that one can be involuntary unmarried person (i.e. not married but open to the idea of becoming married). One goes from being merely unmarried to being celibate by an act of the will - they renounce marriage. Being celibate is not identical to being unmarried.
In the religious context, a solemn form of making this promise to God and to be witnessed by God is a vow. patsw 15:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I have added considerably to the list. Just about all additions ought to be confirmable based on Catholic Encyclopedia, Britannica, or wikipedia articles (if the material is good enough to be in the wikipedia article, it is good enough to be in this list - if you feel it is debatable, the place to debate it is on that pope's talk page, not here).

I would ask for specific criticisms of individual entries, not just general "this isn't sourced, it has to be removed" type comments. john k 07:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates

Would you consider Julius III a candidate? He created a scandal when he made an illiterate youth called Innocenzo cardinal, who was later adopted by the pope's brother. According to the Venetian ambassador Matteo Dandolo this "little rascal" (furfantello) shared "bedroom and bed" (in camera e nel proprio letto) with the pope. (P. Messina: "Del Monte, Innocenzo", Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 38, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana - Treccani, Roma 1990, p. 138-141.) Dandolo's allegations seem to be confirmed somehow by the contemporary scholar Panvinio who accuses Julius of being lecherous and having got involved in affairs with boys (puerorum amoribus implictus). Joachim du Bellay called the cardinal boy Ganymede (Les regrets, sonnet 105). That makes one allegation and two allusions that the allegation might be true. Which is unfortunately not enough to include Julius III in this list. Has anymore more proof or information?Teodorico 15:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure. Most of the popes listed are known to have been sexually active at some point because they were either married or had illegitimate children. While a few others are listed (e.g. Benedict IX, John XII), most aren't... john k 07:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Well, actually there are popes on that list whose sexual activity is even more questionable than this one's ("said to have children" with only one source cited doesn't mean they actually did have children). We must give Julius III the benefit of the doubt, because of a lack of proof based on a sufficient number of reliable sources, no matter how trustworthy the presented sources are (an ambassador, a poet, a scholar, all of them catholics). However, in view of the historical incrimination of homosexuals as mortal sinners the problem with popes who are said to have had sex with other men is even more delicate than the problem of popes with wives and/or mistresses. There are countless contemporary allegations about popes practising "sodomia" (Leo X, Sixtus IV, Julius II, Boniface VIII), but - AFAIK and until someone prooves otherwise - the in dubio pro reo-rule must apply here for all of them, because only one trustworthy source, hearsay or gossip is of course not enough: referring to catholic clerics as sexually active hypocrites was (and is) a stereotype and an effective weapon frequently used by their opponents and as old as the church itself (see Templars, Huguenots, Antipopes, Jansentists, Guelphs, Jesuits etc.). We must address that here, because putting could-bes on that list (who can be easily challenged) does more harm than good, because it doesn' say anything about the hypocracy of the papacy in matters of sexual morality, or does it? Teodorico 11:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Catholic Encyclopedia says they had children (which it does for most of them), I think that it's fair to say it's an undisputed fact. Again, which specific entries are disputed? I would suggest that we have separate categories for popes demonstrated to have engaged in sexual activity (either by being married or having had children) and popes who were accused of engaging in sexual activity (whether heterosexual or homosexual). john k 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Married popes.

In particular, present-day church law allows the College of Cardinals to elect a married man to the papacy, although that has not happened since the 14th century. The first pope, Saint Peter, is reported to have been married.

Who was the married pope in the 14th century? This seems to me to be completely wrong. There was a pope in the 13th century (Clement IV), who was married, and widowed, before he became a priest. But that isn't the same thing at all. There hasn't been a man who was married while pope since the Roman era, if ever, as far as I can gather. john k 05:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be technical about it, that wouldn't make the claim "wrong"; it would make it true. Something that hasn't happened ever, necessarily also hasn't happened since the 14th century. --Trovatore 06:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
We're dealing here with some terminology ambiguities that need to be spelled out in the entry for each pope: a person who married and whose wife died (i.e., a widower) was "married" and became free to marry again, or in the case of some of the listed popes above free to be ordained. In contemporary usage we categorize people by single (never married, divorced, widowed) and currently married. "reported" should be "according to the Gospels". (I'll change that now) For the sake of accuracy, if the last married pope was of the 13th and not the 14th century, that should be corrected. patsw 15:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Research Wish List

This is a list for announcing that you've not be able to verify something:

  • The dates and circumstances of the marriage of Pope St. Anastasius I. I looked at a lot of book and they don't record anything on it.
Eventually, we can state "no details of the marriage are recorded in standard references on papal history." patsw 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um...WTF?

What the heck is the use of this article? To anyone? Seriously. Man, this is pointless. Flip Merav 21 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. OMG THE POPE HAD SEX? Who gives a shit? Superior1 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this here?

Though I think that the 10 longest reigning popes is useful, I feel that this is not so. Deletion of this distasteful ariticle should be considered. Captain panda 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been considered; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes. -R. S. Shaw 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous deletion discussion does not appear to have been a legitimate process. I am going to submit the article for deletion again. Carlos_X (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary while this article still exist

I agree this is a silly article. However it does exist and thus I will add my 2 cents worth.

This article begins: "Since Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church has required priests and bishops to be celibate."

Again, Wikipedia creates a terminology problem upon itself. Its instant use of the Prefix "Roman" to the Church at large has been highly criticized and this certainly exemplifies the problem.

The statement should read,"Since Middle Ages, the Latin rite(Western rite) of the Catholic Church,has required priest and bishops to be celiblate."

Therefore, it becomes much easier to understand the following sentence within that same paragraph: " In the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, married men are routinely ordained to the priesthood, but not to the episcopate."

Thats the Easter Rite of the same Catholic Church which Wikipedia imposes the prefix "Roman" everywhere else and throughout this cyber encyclopedia.

I hope one day wikipedia, regardless of arguements, realizes the proper terminology for the Church at large, simply the Catholic Church. I've yet to hear any non-Catholic Christian stating he goes to "catholic" church for Sunday Church service. Thus, it should be just as appropriate to call the one church that actually calls itself in the general sense simply the Catholic Church, by that same simple term.

This nonsense equates to the Latin American term for the United States as the "United States of NORTH America because they somehow feel that by saying "America" it includes all nations of the New World. -Yet, somehow they ingnore the fact that Mexico, and Canada are alse separate nations of the Northern Contenent.- The name of the nation is the United States OF America period. Changing the name by adding a prefix to the name of the country(in this case, the Church) is simply inappropriate and succumbing to stubborn rhetoric.Micael 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something else for the History section

This article is an interesting view of the Roman papacy from its earliest times. The Roman celibacy is questioned by many today, and looking at things in light of history is always beneficial.

Along the lines of history, it is important to note that this is focused on Roman popes, as opposed to antipopes or even the Greek popes. Though it may have been a practice among some early Christians, possibly originating among the monastics (though I don't have a source for that), the first time it was mentioned in a canon was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This was PRIOR to the schism between the east and the west, but it did lead to the present division between the Eastern and Western churches that exists today. The schism, which occurred 33 years later, was over the Definition of Chalcedon, not over the canons. At the time, Rome accepted only the Definition and not the Canons. Rome did finally accept the canons 800 years later at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The East also did not accept the Canons until the next century. All that is to say that the Canon mentioning celibacy for the first time was included in a list of 30 disciplinary canons stating that lectors and and chanters were allowed to marry, but only women of orthodox faith. Deaconesses had to be at least 40 years old, and celibate. Consecrated virgins were not to marry, but leniency should be used if they should lose their virginity. Monks were forbidden to marry, and this was the first official pronouncement about monastic celibacy. (source is Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils) I don't know when the celibacy was extended to the clergy (monks were members of the laity), but maybe somebody else can find that part. A canon is considered Doctrine by the Roman Church and the Eastern church to this day.

By the way, calling it the Roman church has nothing to do with stubborn rhetoric, Micael. It is to distinguish it from any other church, claiming to be "catholic" (lit "According to the Whole"). Namely, the Eastern (Greek) Church. --T00001 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Agenda?

It seems to me that there is an agenda behind the creation and propagation of this article. Why not have pages devoted to the sex lives of movie stars? It would be equally as relevant. Matthew Cadrin 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no proscription against movie stars having sex, and no one holds them up as paragons of morality (or at least, no one should). There's whole books devoted to this subject. A Train take the 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Nor was there any proscription for the first 800-1000 years for pope. Student7 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What about a List of sexually active Dalai Lamas? There is a prohibition on that correct?--T. Anthony (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requst for consensus on re-naming or removing all together

This page seems to be pretty messy over all including it's name. I propose we either delete it totally and merge it into the articles of the popes mentioned or we re-name it to "List of Non-Celibate Popes" and do some major work to clean it up. Any comments? Wikidudeman (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Non-celibate" in this context would be likely to be construed as "married"---see clerical celibacy. Thus popes who employed prostitutes or who otherwise had sex without being married would be considered "celibate". Michael Hardy 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you figure? The clerical celibacy page says "Clerical celibacy is the practice of various religious traditions in which clergy, monastics and those in religious orders (female or male) adopt a celibate life, refraining from marriage and sexual relationships, including masturbation and "impure thoughts" (such as sexual visualisation and fantasies)." Wikidudeman (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "celibate" with "chaste". "Celibate", at least in this context, means not married. An unmarried man having sex with a prostitute is celibate but not chaste. A married man having sex with his wife is chaste but not celibate. These are admittedly somewhat archaic usages, but still standard in this context. Michael Hardy 21:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the Clerical celibacy page says. It says that inorder to be celibate you must refrain from all sexual thoughts or acts. Do you have any sources for your definition of celibacy that says one can be celibate if they have sex? Wikidudeman (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right: the clerical celibacy page is misleading at best. I'll work on it. As for sources, the Oxford English Dictionary, under celibate says:

Unmarried, single; bound not to marry.
One who leads a single life, a confirmed bachelor or spinster; one bound not to marry.

It doesn't give any other definitions. The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Celibacy of the Clergy", says:

Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades.

Michael Hardy 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Webster says:"2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse."[[2]].
As for the Catholic Encyclopedia, It says "for the more perfect observance of chastity", Chastity being defined as "Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite." [[3]] Wikidudeman (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems like gazetteer type stuff to me. Because it is infrequently, if at all, found elsewhere, it may be OR - original research. This is already available in separate articles for the interested researcher. The only reason for putting it here is (it seems to me) to titillate the ignorant who are not aware of the less than mandatory celibacy in the old days as opposed to modern times. The article seems to pose the question to the ignorant: "Were the popes hypocrites by preaching celibacy/abstinence and not following it?" The article answers "yes" rather lengthily. Actually there was no such preaching at the time. The article also implies the double standard for what is preached today to the lait and was once practiced by the popes. Again suggesting that the church is historically hyprocritical. This is not an encyclopedic article. It has a blatant POV. It should be deleted. Student7 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research if there's already stuff published on these popes. It's not like many lists that connect wholly unrelated subjects (imagine a "List of people from Tunisia who eat strawberries on Fridays"), but a list of people (a small and well-defined group) who do exactly what we don't think of them doing. And what's wrong with having a separate article; we have a List of United States Presidents by military service that's only a summary of what's found elsewhere. It's a fact that some popes were sexually active, and not something POV at all (whether or not some parts of the page are such); to delete it for the sake of avoiding titillating the ignorant would be censor Wikipedia. Nyttend 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not "Popes who believed in the tooth fairy"? Ah, not titillating enough. Or "Kings who were left handed." Same problem, I suppose. Then how about "Presidents who had sexual scandals"? Oops, there is one? Drat. Bad example. Student7 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm getting the hang of it. How about "National Security Advisors who were afraid of the dark" or "Chief Rabbis who consumed pork" or "Imans who kept signed photos of the Prophet" or "Newcast anchors who vote Republican" or "Popes who ate meat on Friday." The latter would have a lot in common with this article, since eating meat on Friday was allowable at one time, then disallowed, then reallowed, with no "sin" attached. The list could be really long. Student7 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)signed

[edit] What does title mean? Apparently not what it says

Pope St. Hormisdas is listed as having been married then lost his wife prior to taking Holy Orders. In what way does this make him a "sexually active pope?" He wasn't pope when he was "actively sexual." This BTW is another example of perfectly innocuous behavior made to appear risque by association. Also Pope Clement IV - same set of circumstances. Pope Gregory XIII had illegimate children prior to taking Holy Orders. Student7 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the title should be changed to "List of popes who ever had sex ever in their lives or who ever even thought about sex anytime in their life." That should just about justify any entry! Student7 (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition to remove unconfirmed cases and those popes, who were legally married

I decided to remove fragments about Clement VII, Clement VI and Julius III, although the last two are of my autorship. I think that on the list should remained only those popes, whose sexual activity is confirmed with 100% certainity. In the case of these three popes we've got only allegations, although quite probable. I suggest also to remove those popes who were legally married, leaving only those, whose sexual activity was against the catholic moral doctrine. CarlosPn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Peter

At least one editor says that only Catholic tradition says that Peter was Pope (first bishop) in Rome. Since non-Catholics outnumber Catholics, it seems to me that it has been established that Peter was not bishop/first pope and therefore (being essentially fictional outside Christian tradition) can be removed from the list entirely! Right? Since he wasn't "pope" we don't care what he did! Student7 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this I don't even. There are more Protestants than Catholics (which is false, incidentally), therefore Peter didn't exist? A majority of people don't care about the papacy, so we should remove one of the entries from an article about the papacy? I'm gonna go look at the picture of Darth Vader with a pitcher of water in the ocean, because that makes a lot more sense than this. 153.42.168.174 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, since when is truth decided by a majority vote? Your argument doesn't quite cut it. Tjtenor2 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

OK, I thought that the lead paragraph was a bit long, especially for a list, and hard to understand. So I moved most of it into a new "Introduction" section and rewrote it. User:Student7 reverted my edit. Discuss. 78.86.9.206 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)