“Gross, or not gross, that is the
question!”
Secular history generally holds that
the Renaissance popes were men of gross excess. In what ways is this
characterization true? In what ways is it false? Were the Renaissance popes
reflective of the period in which they lived, or were they an aberration? How
did events during this period set the stage for the coming Protestant Revolt?
Are we appealing to reason, or making excuses for bad behavior?
When it comes to the Renaissance time period in relation to
Catholic Church history, we must begin by addressing and apparent elephant in
the room: none of the Popes in the 15th century were canonized.[1]
That does not sound like a bright spot in Church history, but rather than leave
us standing with a single truth which forms and incomplete picture of Church
leaders during this period, it should be noted that what the Church needed
during this time period were leaders known for their skills as administrators,
diplomats, military prowess, education, and culture. Theology and the
associated spirit of charity were crowed out by such factors as Martin Luther’s
thesis and the Protestant Revolt. Such points constitute a distinction that
makes a difference when reflecting on this time period in Church history, and
any subsequent fair and balanced treatment of this period.
The men who came to be Pope mirrored the attitudes and
culture of their time, although given over to the imperfections that stem from
rationalization. Although not perfect, and nobody is, it is often forgotten these
Church leaders did uphold Orthodox Catholic beliefs and dogma during this turbulent
time period, and fit within the norms for religious piety of their time.[2]
The secular media today, however, is prone to distortion and out-of-context
characterizations. The most recent example being the distorted impression given
by the Showtime television mini-series fiction, “The Borgia’s.”
It is important to know and speak the truth about this time
period in Church history. As anyone in the media will tell you, sex sells. The
luridness of Papal sexual relations overshadow the greater good done by the
Church that should be the central focus of this time in history. However, telling
the tale of the reacquisition of papal land, as one example, cannot compete on
television with the audience sizzle ginned up by stories of a Pope’s illicit
sexual activity. It is somehow forgotten the Pope is also a man, no better or
worse, and subject to the same temptations as every man. While not an excuse
for immoral behavior, it should not be shattering news some Popes have sinned
while in office. No Church office, or for that matter any office, comes with
divine protection and immunity against sin by the office holder. One could in
fact make a compelling argument that the Pope is under the greatest attack by
Satan of all men on Earth. In this regard, the sexual sins of a prominent past
United States President have been swept under the carpet, and he leads a full
and complete public life today. To say there is a double-standard at work in
the media would not be an overstatement.
Fighting wars obviously requires manpower, but it also
requires money and the Church had to somehow raise that money. Playing the hand
they were dealt, renaissance Popes in central Italy had to fight to reclaim papal
land taken by Mafiosi families. In addition to reacquiring lost land, Popes had
to finance the reconstruction of Rome, and all that entails, including paying
for the work done by Michelangelo and Raphael.[3]
It was during this time period we observe in Catholic Rome no simple challenge being
achieved: “Aristotle, Caesar, and Christ become one.”[4]
Revisionist historians, who wish to portray the Church as lead by a series of
totally evil and immoral men, often overlook or gloss over many such positive
achievements.
The necessary funds were raised by a series of Popes through
the sale of indulgences, and the only fact new about the sale of indulgences
during this time period was the increased scale of the selling. Nevertheless,
the abuse of the sale of indulgences (an abuse opposed by Pope Paul II,[5])
specifically the charging of fees for Church appointments, and other financial
measures became some of the kindling to start the fire of the coming Protestant
Revolt. Other would-be Protestants decried the literal restoration and
rebuilding of Rome as excessive and vane. And what would they have done
instead?
Note the increase in scale in the sale of indulgences
becomes more understandable when viewed in proportion to the tremendous demand
for funds facing the Popes. Also note the sale of an “indulgence” is generally
misrepresented by Protestants as an attempt by someone to, “buy their way into
heaven” with the cooperation of the Church. In actuality, this “indulgence”
simply allowed the person to substitute what amounted to a monetary fine for
their proscribed penance, instead of prayer. No doubt when money changes hands
there is an increased temptation to sinful ways, but there was never any
authorized connection between the sale of indulgences and the persistent myth
that the Church was allowing people to buy their way into Heaven. If such a
thesis were true, why not donate extra money to the Church as a sort of “sin
credit” on deposit for whenever it is needed?
In a prefigurement of the numbers to be lost from the
Catholic Church in the Protestant Revolt, the Blessed Mother appeared to a poor
Indian man, Juan Diego, in the New World. From this engagement the Catholic
faith took root and flourished.
[1] H. W.
Crocker, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church (New York: Forum, 2001), 209.
[2]
Ibid., 209
[3]
Ibid., 210
[4]
Ibid., 211
[5]
Ibid., 216
No comments:
Post a Comment