The Bishops of Rome: the trouble is that exalted and mysterious god-like men can be a funny lot

The Popes: A History by John Julius Norwich
Chatto and Windus, £25

by Edward Pearce
Sunday, February 27th, 2011

The curse of the Roman Catholic Church is clericalism. Through health care and education, priests and lay people have done noble, self-sacrificing work in the poorest, most needful places. Its churches stand dressed in Gothic and Renaissance art, and house the exalted music of, inter alia, Byrd, Victoria and Palestrina. But, institutionally, it has exalted its politicians and administrators as god-like mysterious people intended to command. And god-like mysterious people can be a funny lot.

The last pope formed a cult of Padre Pio, the present one reveres the Curé of Ars. Both were mentally disturbed self-tormentors, sleeping on stone, living the lives of Poor Tom in King Lear. Popes have also been in steady denial about the male body’s reliable production of sperm. Sedulously creating a tradition of priestly child molestation, the modern Vatican seems to be inhabited by mad male spinsters.

Some chapter headings in the godless Lord Norwich’s rattlingly stylish account catch the flavour: Schism, The Renaissance, The Monsters, also Nicholas I and the Pornocracy. This last concerns the lively AD900s which charmed Edward Gibbon into his elegancies. John Julius Norwich is as dry: “A parish priest from the unfortunately named village of Priapi was elected as Leo V in 903. A cleric called Christopher overthrew him, flung Leo into prison and was proclaimed and
consecrated… but he, in turn, was toppled early in 904 by an aristocratic Roman who… assumed the name Sergius III (904-11). Christopher was sent to join Leo in jail. Not long afterwards – moved as he claimed by pity – Sergius had them both strangled.”
Pope Joan was a legend, but soon after her alleged time, came “the ravishingly beautiful but sinister figure of Marozia… lover, mother and grandmother of popes.” Holy mother among the holy fathers, she became mistress of Sergius the Strangler, presenting him with the future Pope John XI! High Anglicans, facing the atrocity of women priests, proclaim the Apostolic succession. This would appear to be it!

Yet the perfectly admirable Nicholas V, Tommaso Parentucelli, 1447-55, began the Rome of the Sensibilities. As befitted someone from the Italian Riviera (Rapallo) he set about building the beautiful structures which attract tourists. He got the cattle out of the forum and the Greeks into the libraries. His jubilee year, 1450, brought in busloads of visitors, penitents and other good payers. Levity apart, Nicholas was an excellent pope, one of the first humanists. His one failure was pure luck. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, he proclaimed a new crusade. But the usual pious royalty and itching younger sons had had enough. “So”, says Norwich sweetly, “he returned to the two interests of his life, books and buildings, the only things, he said, that it was worth spending money on.” A near predecessor, Martin V, had pronounced “nothing of antiquity worth preserving beyond what was contained in the works of St Augustine.” Embracing Greeks fleeing  Constantinople, commissioning their translations to fling open Hellenic civilisation and creating the Vatican library, Nicholas helped the Renaissance to happen.

The papacy is a vessel accommodating serial rapists, disinterested scholars and organisation men. Sometimes it had what the Ministry of Defence calls “global reach” but, latterly, would stand in relation to secular power like New Labour to George Bush. Take a handful of Gregorys: Gregory VII, Hildebrand, 1073-85, didn’t quite have the Emperor Henry IV kneeling in the snow, but he made it look like that. And Canossa, where Henry submitted, is a metaphor for abjection. Witness Howard Island, off Queensland, Tony Blair’s Canossa, where the pilgrim praised Rupert Murdoch to his employees. Alas for Medieval history, the measure of Hildebrand is comparison  with Murdoch.

Gregory XIII, Ugo Boncompagni, 1572-85, promulgated the Gregorian Calendar – which was rational and fine. He also put out a contract on the lives of Protestant leaders, notably Elizabeth I, “the Jezebel of the  North”, and celebrated the 20,000 dead massacre of St Bartholomew’s Eve 1571 with a Te Deum – neither of which quite were. Gregory XVI, Mauro Cappelari, 1831-46, much the nicest, had no power at all, and no illusions. His reach went no further than Vienna, where he agreed at all times with Chancellor Metternich, whose troops kept Rome secure against the terrible constitutionalists. Full member of the Reactionary International, Gregory unreservedly endorsed Czar Nicholas 1’s ferocious suppression of the (Catholic) Poles.

The 16th century was rougher: it brought a theology and morality as ferocious as anything in modern Tehran. Paul IV, Gianpietro Carafa, 1555-59, hating the Jews, created the Roman ghetto, imposed yellow hats and drove half of them out. Still, never narrow-minded, he hated the Spaniards just as much. A Neapolitan aristocrat, he burned away, created the Index of Forbidden Books and never missed a weekly meeting of the Holy Inquisition. Pius V, Michele Ghislieri, 1556-62, tried to make adultery a capital offence, settling for a compromise – “all unmarried prostitutes must be whipped and all men convicted of sodomy burned at the stake.” (Oddly, in the cool of the Baroque, 1712,  when the church was supporting William III against the persecuting Catholic, Louis XIV, Pius would become Saint Pius). Another irony is the Sistine Chapel, named for Sixtus V, Felice Peretti, 1585-90, who put down brigandage with 7,000 executions, a head on every spike in town.

For these popes, private repression and religious persecution were the running, ferocious norm with unforeseen consequences far away. The hard times of English Catholics, modest compared with St Bartholomew’s Eve, followed directly, quiet English Catholics being seen here as subjects of the latest, murder-commissioning, godly monster.

The 19th century was much less fun as the church’s relationship with secular power came thoroughly unstuck. Italian unification, so popular in England, and Italy, threatened the papal states, tranches of central Italy misgoverned by the gendarmerie of their Holinesses. Pius IX was a thoroughly nice man, humorous, kindly, without vanity or pride. However, when events took this real estate away, he reacted like a taxed banker. As for Italy incorporating Rome, it was monstrous, intolerable, an affront to Holy Mother Church, to God! He retreated to the Vatican to fulminate for the rest of his life. Having lost the territory, he attempted a sort of spiritual imperialism. His Syllabus of Errors denied that liberalism to Catholics and, in 1870, against fierce resistance, Pius proclaimed papal infallibility “unbounded pretensions to absolute control over the souls and bodies of mankind” said the British representative. While John Henry Newman, now, ironically a saint, lamented: ‘We are shrinking into ourselves.”

Not entirely. In 1891, Leo XIII’s encyclical, Rerum Novarum, though deploring the class war, recognised that it was going on. Flatly “a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke which is very little better than slavery itself.” Yet, says Norwich, “Leo insisted that all his visitors should kneel throughout the audience… and not once in 25 years did he address a single word to his coachman.” The curse of clerical grandeur shone hard on a great pope.

With Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, 1939-58, the church touched bottom. Anti-Semitic, seeing Hitler as a bastion against communism, comfortable with Slav Catholic Nazis like Pavelic in Croatia and (the priest) Tiso in Slovakia, and abandoning the rescue of Jews in Hungary to unauthorised  local clergy, Pius faced heaven with cell injections. Later, in an ecstasy of Mariolatry he proclaimed the Virgin Mother virgin-born.
Command has defined the papacy since the embrace of Constantine. When command has been threatened – by the cheerful light of Garibaldi or the bottomless evil of Hitler – the Church has commonly not known the sensible or right or moral thing to do.

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

Edward Pearce is a political journalist and author
  • August

    The author is not wel informed concerning Pius XII:

    31 march 1940; Louis Finkelstein, director of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, wrote in a letter in the New York Times: “Nobody has condemnd Nazisme (of which antisemitisme was the heart) as sharp as Pius XI and Pius XII)”

    1 march 1947; King Gustav V of Sweden praised Pius XII by giving him the Prins Charles medal … It was the deepest conviction of the King of Sweden and all his advisors that noone during World War II had done more for the persecuted jews and worked harder to save the jews then Pius XII. (Jansen, p.280)

    1967; Pinchas Lapide, a writer and journalist from Jerusalem, wrote the book: The Last Three Popes and the Jews . He states that: ‘it is not because of the irritation about the lying play from Rolf Hochhuth, as about the silence of those who knew damn well what Pius XII did during the war to save jews from the Nazi’s. Pinchas Lapide says: “Pius XII saved more jews than all other churches together and certainly more than all Western politicians together.”

    29 august 2001; Historian David Dalin, rabby in New York said in an interview:
    “The jewish people had in the 20 century no greater friend than Pius XII. During World War II he saved more jewish lives than anyone else in the world, including Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler.”

  • Thomas

    This is just a really weird article. It’s just a bunch of anti-Catholic ramblings. I mean, it sounds like the author has cobbled together a bunch of half-truths and myths and repeated them as his own. Anyway, bit of a waste.

blog comments powered by Disqus