Jump to content

Talk:Pope Paul II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birthdate

[edit]

My source gives his birthdate as 1417, not 1418. Does anyone know which is correct? Danny

His death

[edit]

Nothing that says how he died...being sodomized by a page boy. 22:53, 29 October 2005 68.100.98.29 (His death)

Because it's probably just a rumour. Str1977 23:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this been corrected? If no one can provide evidence it should be removed. Baronjim.

Who is going to provide the evidence? The Catholic Church? Isn't the stroke by Melon indulgence just as unsubstantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.34.72 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he died from wearing to many gems in his papal tiara that and broke his neck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.95.237 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated with official, authoritative sources that are neither from the Catholic Church, nor from modern anti-Catholic writers.
By the way, the stroke by indigestion is substantiated by countless witnesses whose testimony were collected in the official investigation on the death of the Pope, including a well-known doctor of those days, Valero di Viterbo, who had already warned the Pope on the risk of such a death.
That rumor is found only in one or two modern booklets that claim to describe the naughty deeds of famous people that can't sue them (because they are dead), which we can hardly consider encyclopedic. The Italian book previously referenced, btw, only talks about indigestion.
--RCarmine (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Contaldo80 Once again, I am trying to point out that the book being quoted does not mention that information... Here is the entire quote on the death of pope Paul II from the book "I Papi, Storia e Segreti", of Claudio Rendina, with my own translation to English:



Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I took your reference to "original sources" to suggest you had examined the primary source (not the secondary source - ie Rendina). Thanks for nevertheless clarifying this now. I've changed the secondary source to a work that explicitly references the story of his death while being sodomised by a page. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
However, I think the whole point is not clear. This statement is saying that a Pope - leader of the largest Christian community and, to Catholics, the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth - not only committed what the Church considers a grave sin against chastity, but also violated his solemn vow of celibacy, the latter being a sacrilege for someone having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
The above, in context, makes the statement exceptional, thus requiring "multiple high-quality sources".
I do not consider Cawthorne's booklet a valid source, and even further I would say that it is unreliable. Beside this one, I would not know of any other high-quality sources that may justify the presence of this statement.
In order to stop our edit war, I am bringing to your attention that these are the rules as far as I know, and therefore, unless my point is critically flawed or there are further high-quality sources, I believe that the statement is to be removed. I will await for further comments before proceeding.
Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The popes are just men - there are countless examples of sins and broken vows. I suggest you spend 5 minutes on Alexander VI. Incidentally I'm a catholic so no need to explain the background. I don't see that there is a requirement for exceptional sources. If you think the Cawthorne book is flawed then the onus is on you to demonstrate why. We can't treat articles about religious leaders with 'kid gloves' just because they're religious leaders. The same standards apply for all articles.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your statement. We are not debating the humanity of the religious leaders, but the fact that their position makes their following (or not) of the doctrine of utmost relevance. It is no shocking news that religious leaders are not saints, though some have been, but the death of this well-respected Pope has been officially known throughout the centuries from reputable sources, thus turning into an exceptional statement this rumor, this so-called "popular legend" - unheard of until the past few decades - which is nothing but a slanderous statement of breaking a sacred vow, regardless of how this occurred.
I may have a modest knowledge of the standards of wikipedia, however the "exceptional statements" policy is very succinct as it includes:
  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
  • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.
The phrase clearly fits the three definitions, and cancellation is required for several reasons, the main one being the lack of "multiple high-quality sources". Furthermore, as of right now the statement is supported by only one source, a 2004 book called "sex lives of the popes", published by an author known for other similar works such as "Sex Lives of the Hollywood Goddesses". and even his wiki voice states that "many of his books are compilations of popular history, without footnotes, references or bibliographies"; since the WP:NOTRELIABLE policy defines "questionable sources" as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts", this one seems to fit this definition.
Unless you have justified reasons for why we are not currently complying with these policies in this voice, I will proceed with the necessary update. Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --RCarmine (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I carried out some further research over the weekend which has sharpened my perspective on the subject. Contemporary accounts generally agree that Paul was vain, egotistical and interested in his jewels. Aside from the version that he died from apoplexy brought on by over-eating melons; there are at least two "popular" versions of how he died. One was apoplexy after being engaged in a strenous sexual act with a page. The other was that he summoned a spirit from his ring that then subsequently stranged him. Perhaps neither of these last two are genuine (certainly not the last anyway), but they nevertheless may be apocryphal. "Popular" accounts should not be lightly dismissed, as they can shed light on a wider truth. Both contemporaries and subsequent historical analysis demonstrate a strong belief that Pope Paul II had a passionate interst in jewels and men (a source for this argument would be John Julius Norwich recent book on The Popes). I don't think you do the subject any favour by trying to close down discussion in this way. I'm also not sure your argument that we should take extra care about sources because we are suggested that he broke "a sacred vow" - that of celibacy. But most historians happily relate how he routinely broke the vow of poverty - and amassed a notable collection of jewels, fine vestments and arts. Does that vow not worry you? Could you also please give me a source for your argument that he was "well-respected"? I'm not sure that he was particularly. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but where in the world does it say that he made a vow of poverty? Actually, where does it say he made a vow of celibacy? Secular priests make no vows, they make promises. And they don't make any such promise of poverty. Vows of poverty are for consecrated religious such as Franciscans or Dominicans. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Elizium23 says, it is a common misconception that clergy take a vow of poverty, but that is not the case. Only religious who live a consecrated life (ex. friars) take such vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience to the Church. The current Code of Canon Law does call the ordained clergy to material simplicity, but that is not a sacred vow.
Kuhner's "Encyclopedia of the Papacy" states that Platina's posthumous revenge on Paul has distorted the picture of this pope right up to recent years; he also writes that he was deeply interested in art, and collected coins, gems, and antiques, which does not appear immoral or sacrilegious. He also led to the construction of Palazzo Venezia, a masterpiece of architecture that today hosts a great museum. Perhaps he was not well-respected in the eyes of some, but his papacy was ultimately not comparable - like you tried to do - to that of Alexander VI.
Nothing to argue, of course, against anything supported by reliable sources.
Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that there's no papal vow around poverty - but it's hardly in the spirit of the Gospels is it. But I do question your description of Paul II being "well-respected" and the argument that he would have been unlikely to have broken his solemn vow of celibacy. Particularly when we have established that he was vain, avaricious, gluttoness, temperamental, not above bribery or torture, and a lover of luxury. But under no circumstances would he, of course, have had sexual relations with one of his pages. However, despite my best efforts I can't find a clear link to the source of the popular legend of him dying after being sodomised. If anyone can suggest a place to look then that is welcome, otherwise I agree we'll need to leave out for the timebeing. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to judge or condemn people because we see some of their defects or vices or because they may have committed something awful - that's also hardly in the spirit of the Gospels. I do question that we have "established" that he was those things. Based on what? On a few things that have come down to us from his biographers - some of which were rather unfriendly, as history has shown? A rich person can be poor in spirit, a poor person may place wealth above everything else...we just don't know, because we cannot see their intentions, and we cannot assume someone is a glutton because some have seen him eat a lot at once, or temperamental because someone has seen him upset a few times.
Yes, there is a significant difference between lust (the disordinate desire of something sexual) and natural sexual attraction (which the Church has never condemned per se, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual), thus the "passionate interest for men" that you mentioned might have been perfectly chaste, as far as we know, and we also cannot assume homosexuality from this, because we don't know either. What I am suggesting is to be careful when assuming things: we are not a primary source, all we do is gather reputable data that reflect truth as much as possible, regardless of how good or bad will that truth make someone or something appear. --RCarmine (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the need to simply reflect good sources. But likewise we shouldn't assume someone cannot have certain characteristics by nature of them being the pope; nor that all their actions are consistent with Catholic doctrine. We need to be open from the start to the fact that Paul II may have been chaste or that equally he may have had sexual affairs with men (or women). Our role is to look at the evidence and use that in a sensible and balanced way to build an article. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've discovered now that there are some reliable sources aside from Cawthorne that deal with this episode - Hans Kühner, Das Imperium der Päpste (or Encyclopedia of the Papacy), and Ferdinand Seibt, Bohemia Sacra: Das Christentum in Bohmen 973-1973. I've amended the text to reflect.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew about those sources, as a matter of fact I have both of them sitting on my desk right now. Are you sure they say that? I am not, because they are in German and I am not knowledgeable with the language...someone is helping me translate the related pages to verify what they actually say. Pending the results of the translation, we may as well assume the sources are good and leave the statement as is for now. By the way, Kuhner's English edition, "Encyclopedia of the Papacy" (1958), has Paul II's biography on pp. 127-128 and does not mention this when describing his death. I don't know what the German version says yet (pp. 252-254). --RCarmine (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would certainly welcome your perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After long searching for any trace of a primary source of an alleged "popular legend" about death of Paul II during homosexual intercourse, I became convinced that it does not exist at all. No reputable academic source make any reference to such a legend, and those popular sources (such as Cawthorne) do not cite any primary source. Actually, Pope Paul II faced the accusations of immorality (by the standards of Catholic teachings) made by his contemporaries, but these charges clearly referred to heterosexual activity only. Gregory of Heimburg and Janus Pannonius accused him of having fathered illegitimate daughter, some others made only general statements about his immorality, while Attilio Alesio, writing only in 1531, claimed that he had made his household "full of concubines", but there are no references to sodomy or any predilactions for young boys. See Paul Joachimson, Gregor Heimburg, Bamberg 1891, p. 270, and Pastor, History of the Popes, IV, p. 139-140, both with references to primary sources. CarlosPn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossdresser?

[edit]

On the internet I'm not able to find any reference to his being 'homosexual' except for a list of famous transvestites that appears exactly the same on numerous websites. Does anyone have a source for his being 'cited as being gay'? All the encyclopedia entries I've checked say nothing on the matter.

The Catholic Encyclopedia perhaps doth protest too much when it says Gregory of Heimburg's charges against Paul II of "immorality" are "untenable." --Kstern999 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm no RC apologist, I think the following undermines the article's credibility: "one of his successors suggested that he should be called Maria Pietissima, "Our Lady of Pity", because he was inclined to break into tears at times of crisis". Infessura might be the source, but unsourced it's drivel. --Wetman 06:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now added a reference from Karlen which sources the issues around sexuality. Could do with some more research if others have time.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Karlen would justify the "some historians"? I think something like this requires better sources, and there is no reliable source on this, having gone rather far back into his biographies. --RCarmine (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karlen was Associate Professor in English at Penn State University, and had a doctorate in human sexuality from New York University. Incidentally would you mind sharing what biographies you have consulted? They wouldn't all be Catholic authors would they? I would want to be reassured that there was no bias. Many Catholic authors writing on the papacy have tended to lack objectivity. But hopefully uou're able to cite a range of references. Thanks. 14:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk)
I agree with RCarmine, I don't think Karlen as a historian. He had no history degrees that I am aware of. Also, one non-fction writer fails to show the plural of "historians". Bellae artes (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a notice on your talkpage about stalking. I'm afraid I will not discuss editing issues directly with you until that has been resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ducat

[edit]
How much is a Ducat in modern terms?Cameron Nedland (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Popes

[edit]

@Rathfelder: Category:Popes is a non-diffusing category. A while ago, I endeavored to make sure every single pope article is included in this category. It makes no sense to remove one lone pope from it and leave all the rest. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source(s)

[edit]

@Wetman: I noticed that the Catholic Encyclopedia citation was the article for Paul I, and furthermore neither article contained any such text as "justice" or "bribery". So I am at a loss to know whence came the statements that were allegedly supported by the Catholic Encyclopedia citation. You overhauled this article years ago, and so I would like to review the additions and ensure they are reliably sourced. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted in LGBT cats

[edit]

Pope Paul II was a LGBT Roman Catholic pope. That should be sorted in category.

--188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Paul_II&oldid=1205544305"