Pauljohntheskeptic said:

So you acknowledge it was forged and used to manipulate the Emperors in the East and then the monarchies in the West. It was more intervention by the Church into the affairs of the state, somehow not supported by Jesus as written in the Gospels.

John XII- Since you know of his corruptions I won’t bother going into much detail. He turned the Lateran into a brothel and was more like Caligula than St Peter. He had armed gangs rob the pilgrims and they raped them even in St Peter’s.

 Urban II- I have gone into great detail above in what I think of Urban II, he’s the responsible party for murder and mayhem. The Crusades were not justified at all, no one in Europe had a right to invade. The Emperor Alexius I had a right to try, but it had been over 400 years since the Muslims took it from the Byzantine Empire. Alexius also had right to all of Europe as it had been part of the Empire. Murder and violence to take back dirt and cities in the name of Jesus sponsored by the Church and called by Urban II. He should have been executed for war crimes. Today he would be tried and convicted of just that.

Benedict IX- 14 years old when he became pope he used it to his own ends, sex, power and riches. In the end he sold the office which eventually results in 3 men claiming to be pope at once.

Innocent III- His greatest crime was the calling of the 4th Crusade which besieged and overpowered Christian Constantinople, all for loot and booty. The crimes committed there are on him just as with Urban II, he should have been executed for war crimes. He did not intend this to happen, and lambasted the Crusaders for their actions, so perhaps he just deserved life in prison in isolation. He did however launch Crusades in Spain against Muslims, against renegade Catholics and pagans as well. S no, I don’t see him as good at all. Religious persecution is a crime against mankind, he had no right to force the Church’s beliefs on anyone. As before, Jesus told his disciples to knock the dust off their feet as the left a town that wouldn’t receive their message. This is not  the policy followed by Innocent III.

Boniface VIII – Benedict Gaetani  forced through manipulation the abdication of Celestine V then became pope. After he hunts him down and has him imprisoned, though Celestine may have been grateful for the solitude. He dies 10 months later. Boniface is heavily involved in other deceit and manipulation, for his family the Gaetani one of several warring groups that manipulate the Church for their own gain. In 1297, war between the Church, Boniface and his family’s enemies, the Colonna began. They were excommunicated leaving them and their property open to anyone. Later it’s increased to a Crusade against the Colonna. By the Summer of 1298 all but one of the Colonna cities had been taken by the Crusaders. In the end, Boniface has Palestrina destroyed.

 Urban VI – Bartolomeo Pignano – involved in the Great Schism. He eventually ordered the death of several cardinals who opposed him. He raised an army to seize Naples for one of his nephews.
See - http://www.nndb.com/people/285/000095000/

Alexander VI – Alexander Borgia, do I need to say any more than that? I guess so since you don’t see what he did was in contrast to the church’s high ideals. I could tell you to just watch the upcoming series the Borgias on Showtime next year and so you get the idea.
First off he bought the votes that elected him pope.  Alexander had at least 7 illegitimate children if not 10. He used his daughter  Lucrezia to make deals with others through marriage. Several times. Alexander was manipulative involved in intrigue for power and money for his family. Well at least he was loyal to them. His most upstanding virtue was greed though he did act a patron for the arts and instigated much  Alexander parceled out the spoils of Naples between France and Spain for political gain as well. Another good thing he did was to welcome the Jewish refugees to Rome and allow them to lead their lives free from Christian oppression.

His son Cesare was involved in many of the intrigues and was likely poisoned along with his father, though he recovered.

 I refer you to Niccolo Machivelli  book The Prince, written about Cesare Borgia - http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/machiavelli.html
See also ER Chambelain “The Bad Popes” pp 160-205

 Leo X – Giovanni de Medici another of the great families of Italy. His primary interest was of course his family and wealth. As with others during this period he was a major patron of the arts. As with other popes he was engaged in warfare, though it was for family gain such as deposing the Duke of Urbino  della Rovere. As the feudal lord yes he had that right and he made his nephew Lorenzo the duke. The duke Francesco della Rovere however did not go quietly and the pope called on help of the French. The pope excommunicated him and did not lift it even after he was  driven out.  The pope even violated safe conduct for an envoy from della Rovere, torturing him in Rome to get information. All of these wars cost money and the pope had methods to raise it, though it also raised Luther as well.

Clement VII – Giulio de Medici – The main problem with him was his indecisiveness, his ineptness, and political involvements. pope when Henry 8th wanted a divorce. He couldn’t make up his mind and waffled on his decision back and forth. Made ill advised treaties with France. Then with Spain. Then he is involved in the war of liberation for Italy. Then the Colonna family attack Rome. Then back to his Italian liberation war. Rome is sacked by Spanish Catholics & Lutheran Germans.
See - http://www.nndb.com/people/202/000094917/

Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope – In that Jesus said to turn the other cheek I really shouldn’t need to explain what was wrong  with this pope. That he personally dispatched persons from this world with a sword is all I need to consider him evil. He fought to regain and increase the Papal States which is clearly a worldly possession and not in line with leave everything and follow me attributed to Jesus.  Even he was not exempt from putting family in power as discussed in regard to the Duke of Urbino and 4 family members made into cardinals. Julius was one of the first cracks in my beliefs as a Catholic while I was in college. I never could understand or justify the warfare he began. He was influential and a major patron of the arts.
There are many sources you can utilize in regard to his actions, see these as a start  -
http://www.nndb.com/people/520/000097229/
http://www.wga.hu/database/glossary/popes/julius2.html

Pius IX – His anti-American attitude was really all I needed to label him evil. I realize God as envisioned in scripture is an autocratic dictator, so why would I expect a representative to be any different. He is listed as one of the 25 most evil people of the 19th century. See here - http://one-evil.org/people/people_19c_Pius_IX.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX_and_the_United_States
http://www.theologytable.com/Hist%20Chap%2025.pdf
On the 80 errors - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

One of the crimes is related to the seizure of a Jewish Child by the Papal police and did not allow his return to the parents.
He supported the South and dissension which contributed to the Civil War as well as prolonged it.

Pius XII – Eugenio Pacelli
As Cardinal Pacelli and the Secretary of State of the Vatican he concluded the Concordant with NAZI Germany whereby the Church stood by and made no complaints of the actions of Hitler to insure that Catholic Church would be left alone. It is the 1st treaty Hitler made with another country and this gave legitimacy to the NAZIS and sold out the Jews as well. Pacelli made the excuse he had a gun to his head and Hitler would violate the concordat anyway. Regardless, it insured that the RCC would be quieted in regards to actions in Germany.

On his relationship and handling of the Jews - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

NAZI corroborator or not –

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2017
http://www.st-louis.org/pdf/pius.pdf

In the end, he remains for me either an evil pope or inept at understanding of the damage that was caused by his actions and non-actions.

My Response:

Again a concise set of statements

On my statement of the Donation of Constantine you obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I never said it was used to manipulate the governments in Europe. Yes, it was forged, but no one knew that until well after the events had taken place.

Your list of bad popes and what they did that was “evil” are one of three things:  historically inaccurate, distortions or misunderstandings of the truth, or you blame people for actions contrary to the teachings of the church.

John XII- did immoral things absolutely, but as I mentioned before this was and still is not condoned by the Church or her teachings. He also did not change the teachings to fit his lifestyle either. An example of the Church’s incorruptible teachings.

 Urban II- Your problem here lies with the actions of the soldiers and horrible things they did, not what Urban II said. You obviously don’t like the Crusades, its merits/ atrocities can be discussed in another thread.

Alexander VI- Showtime really, historically accurate for sure? First of all there is no evidence that he bought the votes to get him the papal office. At the time of his election it was also considered a fair election. Again did morally bad things, but they were not are not in accord with Church teachings. Yet another example of the Church’s incorruptible teachings.

 Leo X- Again bad things done, not in line with Church teaching, but Church teaching not changed to fit his needs.

Clement VII- Your complaints about this pope are just personal complaints. He could have dealt with the Francis I and Charles V conflict better, but he was caught in the middle of it. Once he did not side with his friend Charles V attacked and locked him up. This seems more like a case of politics and government trying to use the church to get what they want, then when they don’t they go to war or protest.

Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope- Why is fighting to take back what is yours bad? From what I’ve read about Julius II he simply took back what had previously belonged to the church. He arrested Cesare Borgia after asking him to surrender the territory. Then a temporary agreement was reached between Venice and Julius II and most of the territory was returned. He took Perugia peacefully, and the Bentivogli at Bologna were ruling the lands as dictators who claimed to be Catholic. Julius II excommunicated Giovanni Bentivoglio and took the city. After that the Venetians, Catholics elected their own bishops and cardinals and tried and deposed the current ones. Aside from that he fought to free Italy, and ensured that church teachings were followed properly within the church. I’ve never seen or read any evidence that he was guilty of nepotism. All accounts seem to indicate the opposite. Overall he could have made some better choices when dealing with the Venetians, but again none of the Church’s teachings were altered to fit his will.

Pius IX- Are we talking about the same person here? From the historical books he’s described as a good, selfless, man, who stood against corruption, evil, and many heresies. As a result he was attacked relentlessly. What is your problem in particular with him? He didn’t hate America, he did not tolerate liberal Catholics (I don’t either and there is no such thing), and he stood for the faith. I cannot find anything about him being pro-slavery. I find evidence to the contrary like Pius IX branding “the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders.”

Pius XII- You’re history here is way off. Start with this: http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp

Are you familiar with Monsignor O'Flaherty? Pope Pius IX spoke out against the NAZIS before their rise to power. He helped to save POWs, Jews, and many many others. The history of this Pope has really been twisted.