Talk:List of sexually active popes/Archive 1

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 &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC))

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)

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 porges 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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; the cardinals could similarly elect one of those.

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

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)

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)

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)

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 . --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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Response to this: Members of other denominations DO refer to themselves as belonging to "the catholic church," in the sense of "universal," as distinguished from "Roman Catholic." See the Nicene Creed. "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church..." User: Anonymo 16 January 2011

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)

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.
 * 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."[].
 * 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 ." []  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

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)

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 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)

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)

Two points
Was there ever a pope that claimed to be "without sin?"

There is nothing today, or ever, that would prevent the church from electing a pope who had "sinned." Gee.

This apparently will shock somebody who came up with the idea for this article. Student7 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Faithed-based accusation
I don't know what prompted this edit. The article correctly summarizes the findings that have popes prior to 1561 or so, accused of legal marriage, but sometimes worse. Nothing after. What is the problem?Student7 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * A Wikipedia article is not a good source for any article. Even their own policies encourage that thought.  HOWEVER, and this is in line with what has already been said, if you research their references, and then list those same references AFTER you confirm that they do indeed support your claims, then you are ok.  Just make sure not to copy and paste their entire bibliography.  Remember, as much work as some of us put into Wikipedia, it is still not a scholarly source, it is a community effort. Emry (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Married before taking Holy Orders
Still perplexed by this caveat being here at all. Anyway, we have a replacement priest (in the US) who was married and had 8 children! His wife died. His kids grew up. He decided to become a priest. Was a deacon, the vows for which prevented him from remarrying. He is technically eligible to be elected pope, though I don't think this will happen. All of the above resume is just fine with today's church BTW. He has not "sinned" in any way. Student7 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the above would have been fine with the church 1500 years ago also. From the sounds of it he has done nothing to disqualify himself.  Emry (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Well, the list of popes who weren't celibate manages to cover through implication the ones who were. As for all the popes who were saints and martyrs, I imagine that might be a helpful list to add, if it doesn't exist already.  And as for the left-handed and vegetarians, I'm positive that Wikipedia already has lists of notable vegetarians and notable left-handed people--adding a few popes to the list couldn't possibly harm it. 204.69.190.75 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

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)


 * Not that I can find. 204.69.190.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

Legends on papal pederasty
For a long time, there were rumours disseminated about Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, a Cardinal-Nephew who was alleged to have been abused by Pope Julius III. Although this has never really been proven as a fact, it could perhaps be included on the page as part of a section on historically unverified allegations on the subject. There are several other popes who were accused of engaging in such affairs. ADM (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. It's actually a difficult exercise trying to attach labels to some of these things. It's possible that some popes were "homosexual" in the modern sense of the word, but just as likely for others to be described as "pederasts" (particularly where the age difference is so marked - although not to be confused with "paedophiles"). Again the issue of abuse is also interesting - there's a likelihood that a good deal of these "relationships" were non-consensual or coercive. But the Ciocchi case suggests that there were obvious rewards to be had. Likewise with the popes who engaged in heterosexual relationships or were married. It would be good if in some way we could tease out which of those were coercive, abusive or perhaps involved rape. It would also be intriguing to see which might be accused in the modern sense of being paedophiles - attracted to pre-pubescent or under-age girls or boys (or both). Potentially all a very difficult exercise though. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just got through documenting a 1930s (!) child's radio show on which "everyone" in the country "knew" that the host has inadvertently said into an open mike "There. That oughta hold the little bastards!" An in-depth research by snopes decided that this probably wasn't true, had been applied to nearly all future shows, and, incredibly, has probably been created prior to this show, quite famous at the time.


 * The reason I am mentioning this, is that everyone knew that the host had said this and knew people who had heard him say it. While examination of modern facts can uncover many clues, I realize a limited number of ancient ones, doesn't hold much promise of success.


 * Putting allegations into this article without something more substantial sounds pov to me. Nearly all gossip regarding people in high places comes from other people who had an axe to grind and were spreading material against their enemies, dead or alive. This article is not supposed to be a gossip column. It is supposed to be encyclopedic. The article probably shouldn't exist since the premise is preposterous - that popes shouldn't have a sex life and therefore Peter (for example) belongs here though legally married. It is the type of article you might find in a tabloid. Let's not make it worse! Student7 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From the perspective of historical analysis it is sometimes just as important to understand what people "thought" or "believed" as it is about what actually happened. At the end of the day all history is a matter of perception. "Gossip" can often tell us something very useful about the times.


 * Julius II may have/ have not been sexually active or indeed homosexual/ heterosexual. But what is most interesting is that some contemporaries thought he was - and subsequently we are able to understand such polemic as commentary on contemporary events. Perhaps accusations against Julius were motivated by frustration/ anger around his military campaigns - here what we might have is a dominant aggressor whose attacks on the battle-field are mirrored by his direct actions in the bedroom?; Or perhaps they helped undermined the morality of the papacy in order to make possible wholescale rebellion easier subsequently through the Reformation?; or perhaps people did not think that lax morality by occupiers of the papacy was a problem (as it would be in subsequent centuries) and reflected broader social trends around the renaissance? Any of these or none of these might be true. Let's understand what axes were being ground.


 * Is it an accident for an example that the bulk of "homosexual" popes cited here were connected to Florence or the Medici - was Florence at the time a place that tolerated such men? Was the Renaissance perceived to be an "effeminate" or "modern" movement that tainted its protagonists? What happened in subsequent decades? All of this is important stuff - we shouldn't assume that history is all black and white with facts and trivia. All of it helps weave together a pattern to understand what motivated individuals and what lay behind events. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Innocent VIII
I don't understand the efforts to include in this article discussion "how many children had Innocent VIII". The article is titled "list of sexually active popes". Two illegitimate, acknowledged children is sufficient evidence that he was sexually active. Whether these two children were all that he had or not doesn't matter here. Besides, the number sixteen, although repeated by many sources, is based only on an anonymous poem circulating at Rome at the time, which has no proving value about the real number of Innocent's children. Anti-papal diarist Stefano Infessura indicates that he had seven illegitimate children, of whom only two were acknowledged. It is possible but not proven. See for this, for example, Marcello Vanucci, ''I Borgia. Dalla Spagna a Roma:la storia di una famiglia che del potere e della ricchezza fece il propio Dio'', Newton & Company Editori 2002, where the origin of the number 16 is highlighted. Further, I haven't found in the scholar literature any single instance of his nephew who would have been identified as his son, or niece identified as his daughter. This is his genealogy. The great caution is required by accepting even more moderate Infessura'a statement due to his known partiality and several inacuracies (in some instances even the proven lies) he had made in his diariesCarlosPn 31 May 2009 13:00 (CET)


 * I concur. Worse, the reference given is a "handbook" which is a tertiary source, not a secondary source needed here. We sometimes ignore tertiary sources when used, but it can't be here because it is unscholarly - it merely quotes other sources just as Wikipedia does. We need a researcher to be WP:RELY not a "handbook." But it is extra and therefore unecessary here in any event. This isn't Innocent's bio and shouldn't be. He has his own article. Details pro and con can be listed here.


 * This was supposed to be a short one line summary, not a pro and con debate of exactly how many children someone had who wasn't supposed to have any children in the first place, were he truly chaste before taking Holy Orders. The editor is getting carried away with the "scandal" aspects of the case, which is why the article shouldn't be here at all. Silly to have an article explaining that some of the popes weren't perfect when no human is.Student7 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Student7, if you continue to think of the "purpose" of this article as to advance some particular argument, then you will not come very far in improving it. The information about how many children Innocent VIII had is very relevant to this article. If the sources differ over how sexually active he was, that is just as important as whether he was sexually active. Once again, please make an effort to cite sources in a way that captures the fact that they differ, and makes clear how they differ. Savidan 14:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

As I have made clear below, I think this is misguided. This list should make clear the uncertainty, rather than creating its own arbitrary criteria for certainty and erasing cited information that happens not to meet a subjective criteria. Rather than trying to put your own percentage on the fact, it might be more neutral and to say what the different sources say, making the attribution clear. Savidan 14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The text above no longer represents my point of view. See below CarlosPn (talk) 7 Jun 2009 23:00 CET

Why remove those who were legally married instead of just saying they were legally married? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or tabloid?
I've got some objection against this article as it stands, particularly against the section about the popes allegedely active as homosexuals. The title "list of sexually active popes" indicates, that about the popes included here we are certain that they were sexually active, or at least it is very likely that they were. This requires some selection of the cases, because the list of the popes who were accused of immorality of different kinds is even much longer. For example, popes Boniface VIII and Adrian VI were also accused by their enemies of sodomy, but I haven't found any scholar source that would treat these accusations seriously. Nigel Cawthorne indicates that St. Pius V had illegitimate children, but he had not presented any evidence for it and it seems that he may have confused him with Pius IV. Clement VI was accused of love affair with countess Turenne by Petrarch. It possible to mention also additional cases. But if this article has to remain encyclopedic, should contain information either proven or at least based on solid contemporary evidence that make the allegations highly probable. In the other case, it would transform into tabloid. What's the problem with the "homosexual popes"?. I'm open for the discussion, but IMHO only the case Julius III meets the criteria proposed above ("proven" or "highly probable") to include in this list. His predilaction towards young boys is attested by several contemporary reports, including even the catholic historian Onuphrio Panvinio, who can not be suspected of being anti-papal propagandist. The accusations against Leo X are discussed in his entry and discussion page. I'm not sure whether the testimony of Guiccardini is enough to include Leo in the list of the popes "sexually active". The case of Marcantonio Flaminio, IMHO, proves nothing about sexual life of this pope. Leo X is characterised as extravagant person, and his attitude towards Flaminio not neccessarily had a sexual context (cf. on him Paul Strathern, The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance‎, Jonathan Cape, 2003). Certainly, we've got no evidence for sexual relationship between Leo and Flaminio, and some authors, basing also on the contemporary testimonies, indicate that Leo X lived in chastity. Even far more disputed are the cases of Paul II and Sixtus IV. As far as I know, the accusations against them are based almost entirely on only one contemporary source. In the case of Paul II it was Gregor von Heimberg, partisan of Georg of Podebrady. In the case of Sixtus IV, it was Stefano Infessura, anti-papal diarist and personal enemy of Sixtus IV. These accusations were later repeated on several occassions by many authors, but generally go back either to Gregor or Infessura. Cetainly, neither of them can be treated as impartial and reliable. That Paul II died engaged in the sexual intercourse with young boy is only one of many versions concerning the cause of his death - other include guzzling with melons, wearing too weighty tiara (sic) or even murder - but they all are nothing more than gossip, and are not supported by any credible contemporary report. Infessura's diary contains several inacuracies, faults and even lies, which has been proven on various occassions by several notable historians e.g. Ludwig von Pastor (I know, it's papal apologist, but many of his arguments are well-founded), Gerard Noel, Frank Bourkle-Young or even Robert Aldrich and Garry Wotherspoon in their Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History. The epitaph on the tomb of cardinal Gian Giacomo Sclafenati also proves NOTHING about the sexual life of Sixtus IV. The suggestion that this epitaph is an allusion to sexual intercource of the cardinal with Pope Sixtus is a far-reaching and rather groundless interpretation. This was not a "papal epitaph" (Sclafenati died in 1497, thirteen years after Sixtus), its author was a brother of the cardinal, Filippo Sclafenati. It is hard to imagine, that he'd have intended to commemorate the fact that his brother received the red hat as male prostitute.

I think that all these allegations are worth of mentioning and it is not my intention to intorduce the censorship. But their place should be in the respective biographical entries, with presenting the arguments both for and against their credibility. On the list titled "sexually active popes" should remain only the cases proven or highly probable, based on reliable contemporary evidence. In the other case, the article would become a tabloid based on the gossip. CarlosPn 31 May 2009 15:00 (CET)
 * Well, I'd like to advise you to accept the editorial policy already accepted by scholars: represent fairly all available information about the subject and leave it to the reader what to accept as the truth and what to reject. I do not think that you even followed the scrutiny you have advocated above. Many 'gossips' were nothing than suppressed truth. History is not an exact science that requires definitions, axioms, and theorems - like mathematics - to prove or deny a statement.--141.156.225.60 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you seem to suggest that history is simply presenting what the historical sources say without any comments, appreciation or verification. But it's not. Have you ever heard about critical historical studies?? History is not the same science as mathemathics, but has also its own scientific rigours. It can not be written basing only on the gossip or on the sources of dubious credibility. The main problem is that when the article is titled "list of sexually active popes", its content must be adequate to this title. Today, the title more adequate to content would be "popes suspected of being seually active" CarlosPn 1 June 2009 17:50 (CET)


 * Tedious "she says" "he says" comments are fine for bios. This article is supposed to be a scurrilous rap sheet, not a lengthy explanation of positions by various gossips with an axe to grind. A one-line generally accepted scandal is all that this gossip article requires.Student7 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * CarlosPn I think you make some important and valid points, and I have strong sympathy with them. My only concern is that we proceed in an even-handed way - treating homosexual activity no differently to heterosexual activity in terms of requiring strong and reliable sources ( - incidentally I think we also need to be careful with describing someone as "homosexual" if we are talking about engagement with young boys or girls. The definition there would be "paedophiliac" which is a very different thing. Although I suspect part of the problem might lie in the description of "page boys" who actually could be interpreted as post-adolescent).


 * I also agree totally with redefining the coverage of this article - I think it should really be called "popes suspected of being sexually active". Because otherwise it suggests a categorisation which is really quite difficult to establish with absolute certainty. That aside I am quite relaxed about the scope of this article. It's evident that not all the successors of St Peter were either celibate or moral men (even von Pastor would accept that!); and so there's no reason why in an encyclopaedia we shouldn't try to understand the issue as fully as we can. It's true that some of it could be interpreted as 'gossip', but not all gossip is without foundation. And the point I've made before is what is the gossip telling us? Contemporaries in the 15th and 16th century were evidently obsessed with the sexual lives of the popes in an attempt to call for reform of the church. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A problem with evaluating past ages is we tend to project our own laws on them. I think that people were considered "adults" at an earlier age than today. So "teenage" pedophilia, as a separately named accusation, may not be accurate in terms of what the laws were at the time. Not to say that I propose giving anyone a medal here. But let's not be too quick to taint them with a 21st century brush. We may possess greater spiritual arrogance but not necessarily a fairer sense of who merits our judgment.


 * Also, fairly named articles start off (as somone proposed) with general leads that could be applied to anyone. An article that starts off "Contaldo80's articles" is prima facie pov. One that starts off "The articles of Contaldo80" is, on its face, fairer. The latter implies that others may have articles as well. The first does not suggest that. Student7 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to advise CarlosPn to read again I have written above. Following a defense line of papacy adopted by some authors does not bring any rigors. As to "only on the gossip or on the sources of dubious credibility" - who marked the sources "dubious", where, and when? The same defenders? "The epitaph on the tomb of cardinal Gian Giacomo Sclafenati also proves NOTHING about the sexual life of Sixtus IV" proves or denies what? Is this "its own scientific rigours"?--141.156.225.60 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's hard to discuss with you, but I'll try to explain you. Reliability of sources can be verified in many ways, particularly by confrontation with other contemporary testimonies and documents. Also by the examination of the point of view representing by the author. The accusations have always greater reliability when are expressed by the person neutral or even friendely towards the accused. These are the methods accepted and used by historical science, not my own idea. If we had written the story of the Roman Emperors Neron and Domitian basing only on Tacitus, Svetonius and Christian tradition, they would be for us only cruel tyrants, nothing more. Historians that I've mentioned above, except von Pastor, aren't papal apologists, and their accounts about the credibility of Infessura not always concerned his statements about the private life of the popes. For example, arguments of Bourkle-Young and Noel against the credibility of Infessura concerned his accounts of the papal conclaves in 1484 and 1492. Pastor has discredited also, basing on the documents from papal archive, one story about Jewish physician of Innocent VIII (it's not a place for details, but the story had no anti-papal but rather antisemitic profile). All these historians have showed, that there are too many points where Infessura provides untrue or at least inaccurate information to treat him as trustworthy source, without further verification in other contemporary sources. The accusations of Infessura against Sixtus were rejected not only by von Pastor and catholic authors but also by some protestant historians (e.g. Mandell Creighton); should they also be discredited as "papal defenders"??


 * Further, I have to remark that I haven't written that classification of the source as "unreliable" means authomatically that this source lies, but only that such source is insufficient for any categoric statement in encyclopedia, unless is confirmed in reliable contemporary sources. Of course, it is not always possible to establish which version is true or more probable. If this article would be redefined, I'd have no objection to retain the data concerning Paul II, Sixtus IV etc. (other problem is how to present them, but it'd be only technical question).


 * At the end, about the epitaph on the tomb of Cardinal Sclafenati, I'd like to advise you simply to read this epitaph and to show us where it talks about sexual life of Sixtus IV. But the answer is simple: nowhere.CarlosPn 3 June 2009 11:30 (CET)


 * I agree - I'm equally sceptical of the inscription on the tomb which seems to suggest he was rewarded for his "gifts of mind and body", but we may be reading too much into that. It's also an odd place to make such a provocative statement. However, it's not just Infessura on Sixtus IV - the allegation is also mentioned in despatches made by the Venetian ambassador and in the usually reliable diaries of Johann Burchard, papal master of ceremonies during Sixtus' pontificate. But I don't want to get dragged into any one individual here. In short I'm keen to see the article continue (but agree it needs to be robust as CarlosPn is careful to argue), and would be happy to rename slightly to avoid making assertions which are difficult to prove (although completely credible I fear). Contaldo80 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Contaldo80, thanks for your voice in the discussion. I'd like to present for discussion my idea how to rebuild this article. Following some Contaldo's suggestions, I suggest to transform the article from "list of sexually active popes" into "sex-scandals (or moral scandals) in the history of the papacy" or something like that (this title maybe does not sound very well in this form, but it's mainly a matter of content, not the title itself), and to focus rather on the public impacts of the accusations against the popes than on their correctness, which in majority of the cases can not be verified with absolute certainity in either way. Of course, it would be good to remark the doubts wherever they are expressed by historians, but it would not be the most important content of the article. The known and supposed cases of immoral conduct of the popes concern practically only two periods: 10th to the 1st. half of 11th century and 15-16th centuries. The first one lead to the Gregorian Reform, the second one to Reformation and subsequentely Counterreformation and reform of the Church - in both cases the known and alleged sexual activity of the popes had a great importance for the origins of these events. It may be an article less about the sexual life of the popes sensu strico and more about the role of such accusations in the contemporary polemics and their consequences for the history of the papacy and the church. The section about "married popes" should be removed, either to the article about celibacy in the Catholic Church or into separate article (here would be no problems with the evidence). I believe that rebuilding of the article in this way would make him more encyclopedic (particularly by intensifying its links to such topics as pornocracy and reformation) and would allow to avoid the charges that it's simply an anti-catholic propaganda violating NPOV.
 * All these points should be treated as initial proposition, not the accomplished project of rebuilding. I'm open for discussion CarlosPn 4 June 2009 13:40 (CET)


 * A title change would be in order. Alone, it would be a huge step in the right direction away from pov.


 * On another note, see what happens when we use "all the information there is" about Bill Clinton, or any public figure today. Nevermind about the "living person" thing. It's just that people are out to "get" him. And it is permanently written, so when he dies (I suppose), summaries of his life will include nothing but sex scandals. This doesn't seem encyclopedic. Having said that, there probably were a few popes whose lives were indeed defined by sex scandals, but maybe not as many as listed here! I would be more inclined to exaggerate the thuggery of earlier popes who poisoned and killed their way into and out of the papacy. Scary stuff. Not as juicy tabloid-y though, I admit. Student7 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

CarlosPn raises some interesting points above. In particular, I agree that the claims of homosexuality with respect to Pope Julius III are an order of magnitude more credible than the others listed in that subsection. However, my preference is to write more, not less, in response to controversy or dispute. If some sources say one thing, and others say another, the best function of Wikipedia can be to sort out for the reader which sources say what, when they were published, by whom, etc. That puts the reader in the best possible position to assess the controversy. I think that talk page discussion can be very productive for articles like this, but it's best when discussion on the talk page is used to further the amount of cited information in the article, rather than as an attempt to decide on a true version of events which are then presented in the article without adequate reference to the underlying controversy. This article in particular could benefit from remaining as a "list", but by including a little bit more explanatory text for each listed pope. I do not think a title change would be in order; in my mind this page provides valuable context to the issue of clerical celibacy, historical aberrations from which have not always constituted "scandals". Savidan 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem concerns how and where to present these data, not whether to do this at all. The title "List of sexually active popes" has a categorical form, which is not adequate to the current content of the article because it includes the allegations contested by many historians. From my point of view, there are two possibilieties - if the title would remain, its content should become adequate, which means that only the proven facts should remain, while the allegations should be included only in the respective biographical entries. But if we want to present the topic in full extant, the significant changes are required, including the change of the title. I believe that it's simply a matter of propriety; the title can not be misleading. Further, I'd advocate my proposition of the title's change into "sex-scandals...". Firstly, I can not agree that aberrations of the popes from clerical celibacy not always constituted "scandals". Such situations had always negative influence on the reputation of the popes - even when concerned only their life before being ordained. The words of Pius II "reject Aeneas, accept Pius" were his answer to the reproaches that were made about his dissolute youth, although his life after ordination was irreproachable. Secondely, the term "scandal" does not forejudge the facts; the exististing of the "scandal" does not depend on the factual accuracy of the allegations which constitute its base. Besides, the changes I postulate do not require the change of the form of the article as "list". I generally agree about presenting the sources. But sometimes the evaluation of the sources is possible. It's hard to imagine that the statements that only 300,000 Jews died in holocaust would be presented on the equal rights with the statement that the number was 5-6 millions. Of course, it's a radical example, but I think that it's clear what I mean. That's why I have opposed to include the information that Innocent VIII had 16 children - it goes back only to the anonymous poem, this number simply passed to the rhyme but it's ridiculous to treat it as statement about the real number of children of this pope, since even strongly antipapal writer Infessura indicated that it amounted "only" to seven. It may be mentioned only as illustration of the perception of his conduct, but nothing more.


 * When we talk about the sources, just a parenthethic note. I've noticed that the book of Nigel Cawthorne is included in references. I've read the Polish edition of this book; perhaps the original ed. is better, but if not, I think that we should rather avoid using this book, for simple reason - it does not contain any footnote. The author provide many detailed (and scandalous) informations about sexual life of the popes, but it is not known from which sources these informations are taken. Even if he mentions an author (which is rather exception than a rule), gives the reader little chance to verify it. On the other hands, there is a lot of statement such as "many sources say", "according to contemporary accounts" and so on. He gives a lot of bibliographical positions at the end but from the text does not appear how he had used it (and, with few exceptions, whether he had used them at all). It is possible to find also many errors easily verifiable in the bibliographical items listed by him, which IMHO opinion discredit this author. For example, he claims that Leo X elevated to the cardinalate his lover Alfonso Petrucci, later a leader of the plot against him. I don't know whether Petrucci was really a lover of Leo, but it is beyond doubt that he was created cardinal already by Julius II, which in the context of the story is not a secondary question. Such examples can be multiplied. CarlosPn 8 June 2009 1:30 (CET)


 * Carlos, can you really support the claim that all examples of papal sexual activity have historically constituted scandals? Where was the outcry against Peter or the two popes whose legitimately conceived heirs succeeded them to the papacy? I would be more open to a retitling of the article to incorporate the idea of uncertainty if it did not attempt to impose this "scandal" meme ahistorically. Of course, I believe that historical consensus should be given more weight, but I do not believe that anything even approaching the consensus about the Holocaust exists in this area, if only because these topics are comparatively much less written on. I think that the fact that that particular allegation against Innocent VIII dates back to an anonymous poem is important information, the elucidation of which will make this article better, not worse. However, to discount certain historical accounts entirely', to the point of not including them in the article at all, is not the proper function of Wikipedia. Savidan 10:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Savidan, read once more what I've written. I've proposed to separate "married popes" into another article, just to make clear distinction of what was legitimate activity and what was not legitimate and constituted scandals. In the context of the scandals, I've written only about the "illegal" sexual activity (by the standards of the catholic teachings). It is clear that in this case Peter would not be included in the article about scandals. The example with holocaust was actually too radical and perhaps not necessary here, I agree, but I mean simply that we must be careful of not to ennoble the stories which are without foundation. What would be the proving value of the satiric picture of Pope Benedict XVI engaged in homosexual act with cardinal Bertone?? Such information had once been really included in this article and, of course, reverted as vandalism. Should it be reverted again?? The note about Nigel Cawthorne is only my humble advise, I think simply that it is not the good source to use by writting this article. It's not a matter of its content itself, but a matter of honesty of the author, who above all is not a historianCarlosPn 8 June 2009 17:30 (CET)
 * Carlos, I think we can distinguish between satire and uncertain accounts of historical popes. The author of that caricature never meant to seriously allege that homosexual activity had occurred, only to lampoon the individuals in question. That is distinct from a historical source that suggests that such activity did occur. This brings us to the important issue of uncertainty. When it comes to whether or not sexual activity occurred, the only iron clad proof would be a sex tape or paternity test. Clearly, this is not going to be available for historical popes; therefore, all elements of the list are only based on written sources. Wikipedia can provide context to these sources as to when they were written (e.g. 200 years after a pope's death), by whom, and what not. Even better would be if there was an article about the source or author in question so that interested readers could find much more context if they wanted than would be appropriate to include in this article. Savidan 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok - to summarise. Are we agreed that (i) we change the title to something like Papal sexual scandals or sex lives of the popes; (ii) include more detail on each of the examples cited; (iii) contextualise the article with the impact on external events - reformation etc; and (iv) move the detail on married popes (with no scandal attached) to the article on priestly celibacy? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - perhaps with only one small correction - "married popes" may constitute a one separate article, not neccessarily subsection in the article about celibacy. Concerning the title, I'd prefer the first one you've mentioned CarlosPn 8 June 2009 18:50 (CET)

I am not in agreement on points (i) and (iv). I do not view the current title as beyond improvement, but do not think it is that bad; by contrast a title focused around the theme of a "scandal" would be a serious disimprovement. I do not see why it is particularly neutral to limit this list to examples that constituted "scandals" (on the basis of Wikipedians' interpretations of Catholic social teaching, not on the basis of contemporary sources attesting to the degree of "scandal"). I'm fine with sectioning that distinguishes between legitimate, illegitimate, pre-, and post- ordination children, but I think that the references to Catholic social teaching should be in the article text, not the section titles. Even if we did have sources demonstrating that each element of the list did constitute a "scandal", that would still not be the preferred title of the list, because the scandal is only one subset, or outcome, of the sexual activity; another important function of this article should be to link to the articles about the children of the popes, and explain what role if any they played in the church or history. The married popes are clearly too few in number to justify the creation of a new article; moving them to clerical celibacy is not justified either; they can be mentioned in both articles, but I think they provide necessary context to this list. Savidan 11:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul VI
A lot of people have claimed that Paul VI was gay, but until now no one has really been able to accurately assert that he was sexually active, therefore Mgr Montini probably doesn't go into this list. [ http://www.examiner.com/x-13299-Detroit-Traditionalist-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Paul-VI-homosexuality-in-the-Vatican ] ADM (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting down a marker? I thought in any case that the article was about popes that have been suspected of being sexually active. At least until we make the changes that have been proposed. Paul VI was certainly suspected to "have been sexually active with male lovers". Sure there's no absolute proof, but there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that could support a reading either way. Why should he be treated any differently? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no one has ever been able to identify any of his alleged lovers, for one thing. If anyone can properly source the allegations, especially with a given context and a sufficient amount of evidence, then I would support adding him to the article. But if it is just random hearsay, or if the allegations are totally unfounded, then he certainly doesn't deserve to be added to the list. ADM (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's difficult to find names. There's also a big risk that the homosexuality allegation is something that was deliberatly blown up by conservative opponents of Paul in order to discredit the modernisations under Vatican II. Putting it all down to a "gay clique" and linking it to the debate about child abuse. As if homosexuality and paedophilia are the same thing. That said though the denials by Paul himself about 'scandalous rumours' is odd and at least indicates that the issue had political or historical resonance, even if the outcome is not proved. In a sense that's what we were proposing in a revamped article - ie rumours and slander as a response to historical movements eg the Reformation and Vatican II. So in that context covering Paul might make some sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not automatically regard examiner.com as a reliable source. I see no evidence on that site that these articles are edited for content in any meaningful way. Therefore, this need not be included in the article, until that site can be demonstrated to be reliable or a more reliable source is found. This, however, is not the same as a similar accusation in a published book by a mainstream or university press publisher. Savidan 19:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - be to be fair, I wasn't proposing that we use [ http://www.examiner.com/x-13299-Detroit-Traditionalist-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Paul-VI-homosexuality-in-the-Vatican ] as the source in any case. Agree that when it comes to the time that we decide to include something then we'll back it up with a mainstream academic source. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Found 3 already: Franco Bellegrandi, Nichitaroncalli – Controvita di un Papa (Rome: Ed. Internazionale di Letteratura e Scienze, 1994); A. S. Guimarães, Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia (2004); Mark D. Jordan, The Silence of Sodom (2000). Interestingly they come at the issue from different angles - Guimaraes is very much of the view that it's a bad thing and that Paul was being blackmailed into making concessions to liberals; whereas Jordan is looking at demonstrating that despite some perceived anti-gay rhetoric, there are many examples of gay clergy within the Catholic church. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If these are reliable sources, and they are stating this as something that there is evidence for (rather than satire, etc.), then perhaps this should be included. I would like to see some brief quotations from these books to better understand the nature of the allegation. Savidan 16:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be better in WikiRumor. The idea of a conclave in the 60s electing a cardinal with even a hint of homosexuality around him, is preposterous. Cardinals are fairly visible. So BTW, are archbishops and bishops.


 * We have another WP article trying to "prove" that Pius XII tried to destroy Jews when all evidence points to the opposite. This is all simply anti-Catholic propaganda. If a lie is repeated often enough, people will come to accept and even believe it. Student7 (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not go down the "anti-Catholic propaganda" route please. It doesn't do any favours and is designed to shut down debate. And in any case I myself am Catholic, so this won't wash I'm afraid. And perhaps it's just possible that either the electing cardinals weren't aware of the issue (being "unwordly" as they were), or even that they thought Montini's merits alone were enough to make him the attractive candidate (despite the fact that he may have been homosexual). Incidentally there is no difficulty with someone who is homosexual by orientation being elected or reigning as pope (this is not against Catholic doctrine or teaching - and there are clear precedents); but agree there would have been a clear and defining issue if the cardinals believed Paul to actively have had male lovers. An aura of mystique also pervaded bishops, archbishops and cardinals well into the 60s - no one would have dared to pry into their private lives; so the argument that their lives were open to a degree of scrutiny is in my view spurious. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that name calling is unproductive. Still waiting to see what the sources say. Savidan 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How active?
I'm a bit concerned at some of the wording we are currently using for some of the article headings. It is factual that more than a handful of popes had sex and that a good chunk of them had children. The movement for clerical celibacy only developed in the middle ages, and was then not observed by many who saw dynastic interests of more importance than religious ones.

I can't see how an article that covers this issue can be seen as violating neutrality in POV. Can I suggest though that using words like "until" and "only before' might be seen as intended primarily to uphold the argument that men who become pope always abide by conventions on celibacy. That's why I think there's rather a POV issue here. What evidence do we have that they were active 'only' before or 'until'. Surely this is a grey area? These men were sexually active - that we know - surely the onus is on to present evidence that they stopped being sexual beings once ordained or receiving the papal tiara. We can't assume it just because it's church teaching. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But what should we prove: that they were not active, or that they were active?? In the western civilisation there's a rule to presume innocence, not to presume guilty. About some popes we've got the data about their activity before ordination or election to the papacy, about some others we know or we've got good reasons to suspect that they were active also as priests or even as popes. But thinking in the way "we can not prove that they were not active after ordination/election to the papacy" we can practically put the names of all popes here because we can not prove with certainity that any of them was not sexually active CarlosPn (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * About the popes currently listed as active before, we've got the information that after dissolute youth they changed their lifestyle, devouted themselves to religion and entered the ecclesiastical state, so there is no reason to suspect that they were sexually active after their ordination CarlosPn (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need assume anything about changing behaviour upon entering the ecclesiastical state. Some did and some didn't. In any case I think we've found a solution to the difficulty by describing the title as 'before' ordination etc - which keeps the door open on sexual behavious after ordination. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are the articles:"Presidents who were sexually active outside marriage", "Kings who were etc." "Leaders of Some Other Church who etc." The article title is mainly to titillate and to take advantage of haters who have actually written books on the topic. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people." This title is simply one of its manifestations. Student7 (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid name-calling please and stick to issues with the article. If you want to start an article about the sex lives of kings and presidents then you are at liberty to do so. The article will be of interest to those who want to understand how the very public policy of clerical celibacy in the Catholic Chuch has been observed in practice by holders of the highest office. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Several popes in the late middle ages did indeed violate many rules and, I suppose, could be lumped together in some sort of article. In the early middle ages, there was a spate of very nasty violence that made the Borgias look like Goldilocks. Those were a good deal worse than the Borgias, et al. Whether there was "illicit" sex involved with these earlier popes almost seems beside the point.


 * The historical lessons have been better explained elsewhere IMO.


 * There are actually more than one "deadly sin." Seven have been listed historically, though believers admit to many more. Clearly articles could conceivably be extended to all 7 (or more). But I am not sure why they should even extend to one.


 * The excesses of the Borgias led to the Reformation and counter-reformation since which there have been no sexual scandals involving popes. So the very public policy has been observed pretty well during the era which has been most critical of it, which is the late 20th and 21st centuries. Clerical celibacy has not been a big deal prior to that. The Catholic Church encompasses several eastern rite churches which do not mandate celibacy for all clerics. There are also priest-converts from Lutherans and Episcopals in the US, who are currently married. The church is familiar with married priests and non-celibacy. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray area
While leaving the door open to any and all popes who were not followed with security cameras and therefore cannot prove where they were at 2 am night of June 10, 873, the wording has been changed from "lads" to "men." Why not keep it gray, since the pope isn't around to be able to "prove" his innocence, and put "male?" That should keep it suitably gray. Student7 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this particular change matters much either way. However, I must implore you to stop viewing this article as some sort of trial or attempting to apply standards like burden of proof. Such is entirely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Articles never attempt to "prove" anything. They are written, in principle and 99% of the time, by people who have not witnessed the events in question and do not claim to. The standard is what the source says, not "truth". If sources disagree that is one thing, but your amateurish attempt to psychoanalyze sourced content is beyond useless. Savidan 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you perceive lumping legally married popes and popes legally married prior to taking holy orders in with child-molesters because the title dictates this?Student7 (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about child molesters? Get a grip please! And most weren't legally married when they had their children in any case. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Six were legally married. There seems to be no reason for them to be listed here. There is no article "Sexually active presidents" under which we list George Washington, for example, as having been legally married.Student7 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Popes are meant to be celibate; american presidents aren't. Hence the interest. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully differ. According to the Catholic church everyone is expected to be chaste. While it is true that people with clerical vocations take a special vow of chastity that goes above that - no marriage. But chastity is expected of everyone within most Christian faiths, at least up until a few years ago. This chastity means faithfulness within marriage for example. I haven't kept track of who or how many religions have since decided otherwise, but this is still true today in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and several notable Protestant faiths as well. Celibacy is simply "one step beyond" but nothing that special. And no, perfection is the goal, but not really expected for any virtue, for anyone. Anger is probably worse than celibacy violations. And where are the articles on "popes who lost their tempers"?


 * I am not suggesting that this gives the popes of the late middle ages and "out" for purposes of this article. But requiring celibacy (and not just chastity) from all popes throughout time is factually incorrect. While the article points this out, it is not pointed out in other articles for others who had the same requirement of simple chastity and did (or failed to) fulfill it. Student7 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sex lives of the popes has long been of interest to people so not sure why we're still at the point of having to justify the inclusion of this article. From my point of view I think we've reached the end of the road on that. As I've said before please go ahead and create any articles you think should be created; but I'd suggest we spend less energy on removing articles we don't like unless they specifically contravene wikipedia policy. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pope Agatho

 * Also note that Pope Agatho (b.577) was married before he was elected Pope in 678 (aged 101) until his death in 681 (aged 104), because it was necessary for his wife to enter a monastery. Presumably the requirement for her to go into a monastery was in order to prevent unseemly articles being written about him in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia article. Eebahgum (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting information about Agatho. In the fictional Cadfael series (based on fact), a married man is "called" to take the vows of an order. His wife abandoned (no children), though she could have entered a convent. Set in 1100s. This has always been the case though when chastity has been observed or sworn. If you haven't been following the comments, see above for real case of widower with eight children becoming a priest in the 21st century. Student7 (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly not enough to prevent him going into this "unseemly article". I'll incorporate. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Felix III

 * Pope Felix III (483–492) is said to have been the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great. Presumably he was sexually active at some time in order for this to have happened. I haven't put it in the article because I can't find references, but see the article on Gregory in wikipedia. I believe the fact is mentioned in Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Eebahgum (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The Catholic Encyclopaedia predictably skirts the issue by just saying that he may have been an "ancestor" of Gregory. However, another source describes Felix as "a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483". I think this is sufficient for the article. Worth includingContaldo80 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is anything that precludes popes from being married at that time. Later, yes. Which is why this article, expanded in scope as it is, makes about as much sense at "Sexually active chancellors of the exchequer" or somesuch. Titillating, but useless and counter-informative. The fact that you had to ask is indicative. Back then, no one would have cared. Student7 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But I think the point is that today people do care. Clerical celibacy is one of the biggest issues confronting the Catholic church. History and practice is shrouded in the mists of time. I think it's wikipedia's job to enlighten and demystify and this article helps do that. I for one never knew that Felix III was a widower - and did, indeed, assume that all popes had been unmarried. This article has proved an eye-opener. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Major issue for the media, perhaps. And certainly a great source of revenue for lawyers. But with 400 years of a pretty clean slate for popes (what other succession has had that kind of record?), I don't think that anyone is seriously holding their breath for astounding revelations about somebody's great grandfather in the 5th century. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Plenty of evidence there for those that want to argue that clerical celibacy is a later development. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Passing judgement
Finally stumbled across an appropriate reference in a policy. It is WP:TITLE. It is judgemental because the reader assumes, or is supposed to assume that popes aren't supposed to have sex, even though some of the "accused" were legally married or previously married. Student7 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's time you let this issue drop. Just a suggestion but I don't think we're really getting anywhere by going over old ground. I can't see what you hope to achieve by not letting readers know which popes were not celibate during their lifetimes. Surely transparency and the contribution to collective knowledge should be the guiding ethos of an encyclopaedia? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the title that is at fault. The range is silly, since it includes (most likely) all the popes since all 265 most likely masturbated. Too bad no paparazzi back then filming this for "encyclopedic purposes." Student7 (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting to see whether we can find any references to masturbation. It is, after all, (according to the Catholic catechism) a sin and "an intrinsically and seriously disordered act". So if popes were doing this then it's a serious no no. Sexual activity within marriage, on the other hand, is quite legitimate.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

could someone delete this article please?
This page is totally useless. i dont think i need to explain myself, do i?Jigglyfidders (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may nominate it for deletion. This has been done before, but there's no good reason not to try again. It has a (deliberately) WP:POV title. One would like to hope that the forces of objectivity and fairness wouod eventually prevail. As in real life, this does not always happen.


 * The material, I assume, is elsewhere in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you do need to explain yourself. There is plenty of interesting and useful material in here that can only help to enlighten readers as to the papacy. The Catholic Church places much emphasis on issues of celibacy and sexuality (rightly or wrongly); it is therefore important that articles such as this help provide a clearer understanding of the history and practice of celibacy through the centuries. And I'm not sure in what way the title violates WP:NPOV? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I've jst checked and Jigglyfidders has been indefinately blocked, which is a shame as we won't get to understand his arguments for deletion now. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no articles on the mistresses of the Kings of England or of Presidents of the United States, nor any other "collection" of what is actually the wrongdoing of, what?, 40 pope out of 240, none since the Reformation. There is simply nothing like this in Wikipedia that perpetuates the fiction that the current officeholder, or their followers, are corrupted by events that happened 400 years ago. This article only exist to embarass Catholics. It is not more informative than the popes individual articles or a "category" containing the accusations against them. It is attempting to foist the fallacy of guilt by association. It can only exist with sufficient anti-Catholic attitude of Wikipedia editors. Student7 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The name itself is WP:POV - that popes "own" sexual activity, rather than a more objective one that would suggest that people, other than popes, are sexually active and suggests that there is something always wrong with this, which, early on, there was nothing wrong with it. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone reading it would think that popes own sexual activity. There's no reason not to have articles on the sex lives of kings and queens for example - there are many books to this effect. The accusations of anti-catholicism are tiresome. I'm a catholic and find this article extremely enlightening. It doesn't cause me offence in the least. I think you're worrying yourself too much. In any case - aside from the general interest - it would help readers (i) understand the history and practice of celibacy in the church and (ii) understand one of the streams that contributed to the reformation. It doesn't say anything at all about the current office-holder, why should it. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is in fact an article on mistresses of the Kings of England (List of English royal mistresses). Also, Royal mistress. john k (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll bet it doesn't include Kings who were legally married, or married before they began their reign under the guise of being "perfectly honest." Student7 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexually active bishops?
With five Anglican bishops joining the church, some of them married, I guess we can now start "Sexually active Bishops." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110801371.html (There are some caveats, like they won't be bishops anymore, but I'm sure we won't mind overlooking that little fact). Student7 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well they wouldn't be bishops, as you say, and the article would also have to be titled as sexually active catholic bishops. But if you want to start that article then do go ahead. This is already an article on Gay bishops. Gay bishops are notable as are the sex lives of the popes. Ideally we would live in a world where none of that matters but while church leaders continue their fixation on sexuality then we will have to create articles to reflect interest.Contaldo80 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Peter the First Pope
According to the Gospel of Mathew, Peter, the first Pope, was married. This should be reflected in the article. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." -Matthew 8:14 Fimbrithel (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is. See the first line of List_of_sexually_active_popes. It had been erased by a vandal. Student7 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Felix V
Subsequently listed as an anti-pope, Felix had been married with children before entering the Church. A considerable part of Europe considered him to be the Pope at the time (1439-49), even though he was subsequently delisted by his opponents. Rather like the Western Schism of 1378-1417.86.42.192.140 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is for actual popes only. I suppose you could start an article collecting the peccadilloes of anti-popes. That should be popular. Student7 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexually Active during pontificate/Abuse theory malarkey
In the section "Sexually Active during pontificate," there is a weighty claim that the popes listed helped spur on the Protestant Reformation. A couple of issues: 1.) There's an obvious neutrality issue there, what with that all still being a sore subject for people many years later. 2.) As a heavy claim, there should be a citation from a good source, like a historian or a primary source of some kind. 3.) This statement is reflective of the "abuse theory" fallacy that has been pushed for quite some time now, i.e., the popes screwed around, pissed off Martin Luther, and then the peasants went crazy, and there was war and junk. Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the complex and storied relationship between a people and their religion.  It ignores (what I believe to be) the more important theological issues that pushed the Reformation, like Luther's ideas of salvation through faith alone, and ending indulgences, as well as the previous abuses of the Church that were not answered with theological reformation, but with internal, more structural reformation (like the dispute between the Conciliarists and the pope, which occurred about 300 years before the Protestant Reformation. There's other examples; read some history books. It's interesting stuff). Even beyond this, if you look at the popes listed, four out of five of them are dead 500 to 600 years before the Reformation.

In short, I know I'm making a big deal out of one line of semi-controversial, admittedly halfway-truthful, text, but I didn't want to just delete it like an inconsiderate asshole. I wanted to bring it up to be discussed. The way I see it, there's a couple of ways of going about this—1.) Delete the text, as it doesn't seem to serve any other function other than to remind us that the popes' promiscuous behavior was eventually frowned upon, 2.) Add a quick caveat, noting the importance of theological differences in the Reformation, 3.) Add a citation from a veritable source.

If you ask me, I say just get rid of the damn thing.


 * Clearly the indulgence business stimulated Luther, who was a "good Catholic monk" right up until the Diet of Worms. The Church handled this poorly and the Reformation was on. But the indulgences themselves were the "straw"; other activities of the popes had been fairly reprehensible and could lead someone "objective" to figure that they might be better off following someone who actually followed Christian teachings.


 * The reverse is certainly true: the Reformation triggered the Counter-Reformation which Luther and others had been trying to trigger from inside. Leading in turn to popes who tried to follow the precepts of Christianity for the next 400 years (and, though it's not as important as this article attempts to show, were not sexually active). Student7 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Popes were not following the precepts of Christianity by simply being celibate. There was nothng wrong or unchristian about being married and having sex. Clerical celibacy was a medievl innovation. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * True about having nothing to do with tenets of Christianity particularly. But it ultimately became canon law throughout the church, an outgrowth of the 4th century Synod of Elvira which did cover Spain.Student7 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations from Sedevacantist Group
This article cites a questionable "Vatican in Exile" page as a source for Church doctrine/Canon law. This is a group that even elected its own Pope. I do not think that this is a reliable source to cite for objective information on the Catholic Church. cheetah777 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Leo X
I erased a remark about Leo X saying that he was noted for being religious. Not quite accurate about that, but neither he nor his (religious) supposed inamorata were known to be involved with each other except by post facto enemies. Student7 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pope Paul II
I've got serious doubts whether Pope Paul II really deserves to find his place in this article. It is stated that he "is popularly alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page" with some references, though at least one of them (Nigel Cawthorne) has certainly little value. I've found this information in several modern "sources" in internet or in the books (but rather in popular books, not the schlarly ones), but never with any single reference to the contemporary sources. Circumstances of the death of Pope Paul II are described with details in the reports of the ambassadors of Italian princes in Rome such as Nicodemus Pontremoli (printed by Ludwig von Pastor), which do not contain any allusion to the alleged death during the sexual act. At one website I;ve found an information that this is taken from Bartolomeo Platina, which is certainly false. Platina has written extensive and very negative characteristics of Paul II in his Vitae pontificum, but did not attack his moral live, and the silence of Platina in this matter was the main argument against such accusations for Ludwig von Pastor (History of the Popes, vol. IV, p. 139-140). Pastor admits that some humanists (Heimburg, Corio, Janus Pannonius) accused Paul II of immorality, but firstly, they were extremely hostile towards Paul II since this pope was an enemy of the humanists in Rome (Heimburg was also an ally of the excomunicated king of Bohemia George Podiebrad), and secondly, their accusations are very obscure and provide no details. I've examined testimonies of Corio and Janus and they are very general in nature, moreover, they suggest rather a female concubine, not homosexual lovers. The Italian ambassadors in Rome, according to Pastor, never made any single allusion to the alleged immorality of Paul II, though they pointed out many other vices. I don't know on what evidence the allegations of homosecuallity against Paul II are based. Another historian, Mandell Creighton, did not even mention them. I suppose that no such evidence can be found in the contemporary sources. CarlosPn (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also keen to get to the bottom of this. But I agree it's not straightforward. There are references in different places to a 'popular legend' but I haven't been able to locate the original source. Have you tried these references: Hans Kühner, Das Imperium der Päpste, Classen Verlag, Zürich 1977, p. 254. Ferdinand Seibt, Bohemia Sacra: Das Christentum in Bohmen 973-1973, Padagogischer Verlag Schwann, Düsseldorf 1974, p. 320. I agree it would be good if we could collectively work out whether there is any foundation to this claim. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've consulted Bohemia Sacra. It says nothing about the cause of death of Paul II. Therefore, I've removed this reference CarlosPn (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for checking and clarifying. And yet I feel certain there must be a source somewhere as I find it hard to believe a claim such as this is a modern day invention. I wonder what the surce is though? Proving very hard. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Move
After that AfD is done, any objections to moving this article to List of popes by sexual activity? Openverse (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much better to perform a split between List of married popes and (for example) List of popes accused of sexual misconduct. The married popes are simply of a totally different order to popes father illegitimate children. StAnselm (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm not sure. I definitely agree with the distinction, but it might be best to try to make it clearly in a single article. Articles that are split up along point-of-view/bias tend to attract further pov. It might also cause a fuss among editors. Also, due to potential repentance, popes-to-be who father children outside of marriage are a different order than popes who are sexually active as popes. There are 5 of those, out of 265. I'd like to see a table of popes that includes their parents, their wife and children or lack thereof, that sort of thing. "Popes and facts arising from the fact that people have reproductive capacities" wouldn't be a terrible topic for an article, the problem is with the lack of cleanup in the current scandal-focused presentation. Openverse (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like this suggestion of splitting up. It seems intended to me to separate out the popes that we're married from those that had sex ouside of marriage - and therefore to eventually downgrade or eliminate any dealing with the latter. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think StAnselm is intending to squirrel the controversial popes away. And an article explicitly about licentious popes is sure to get more attention than the one about married popes, so it wouldn't be hiding much. Do you have any thoughts on the move? Openverse (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested table formatting
I was wondering if it would be better presented as a table. Paul foord (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For example:


 * Popes who were married
 * It was permissible by canon law, and still is, for priests to have been married (once) before receiving Holy Orders. All of the following marriages took place before the priests received Holy Orders.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Name
 * Reign
 * Relationship
 * Offspring
 * Notes
 * Saint Peter (Simon Peter)
 * Peter's wife is known in the East as Febronia and her feast is celebrated on June 28. The Synoptic Gospels recount Jesus healing Peter's mother-in-law at their home in Capernaum . This coupled with, depict Peter as married man. Clement of Alexandria writes that his wife was martyred.
 * Yes
 * Legends dating from at least the 6th century, have his daughter as Saint Petronilla.
 * Pope Hormisdas
 * (514–523)
 * married and widowed before he took Holy Orders
 * Yes
 * father of Pope Silverius.
 * Pope Adrian II
 * (867–872)
 * married to Stephania before he took Holy Orders,, she was still living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace
 * Yes (a daughter)
 * His wife and daughter both resided with him until they were murdered.
 * Pope John XVII
 * (1003)
 * married before his election as Pope
 * Yes (three sons)
 * all became priests.
 * Pope Clement IV
 * (1265–1268)
 * married before taking holy orders
 * Yes (two daughters)
 * both entered a convent
 * style=white-space:nowrap|Pope Honorius IV
 * (1285–1287)
 * married before he took Holy Orders widowed before entered the clergy
 * Yes
 * at least two sons
 * }
 * style=white-space:nowrap|Pope Honorius IV
 * (1285–1287)
 * married before he took Holy Orders widowed before entered the clergy
 * Yes
 * at least two sons
 * }
 * }

I think this is an excellent idea. There could also be a column for numerical order, as in List of popes. I like your text revisions as well (when you do format these into a table, remember to do text changes in a separate edit, so that the diffs remain legible). How were you thinking of the other sections turning out? (That is, how would the table look if it had a pope from each section?) It would be best if the tables were consistent, but many of the other points don't have a clear relationship or offspring, and instead might have "number of illegitimate children", "relevant bad things they did, as confirmed by historians", and "accusations made by political adversaries and other rumors". Some of this can probably just be placed in a single "notes" column. The sections themselves might be turned into a column, something like "condition at time of (alleged or actual) activity" (married, under celibacy vow, or was pope). But what do you think? Openverse (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of structuring around a table. I don't like the suggestion that some of the detail be left out or relegated to a footnote because it is supposed 'rumour'. Contaldo80 (talk)
 * Your concern is justified, but I don't think anyone wants to hide things in footnotes. On the other hand, we do need to say which points are considered true, and which are considered rumors (no scare quotes). One of the popes liked to dress up and would cry more often than most men. Not knowing too much, this seems a better explanation of him being (unjustly) called gay than an actual fact that he died during an act of sodomy (exactly how many people die of sex-induced heart attacks?) Openverse (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I too doubt that Paul II died while being sodomised. But I wouldn't want to dismiss it too quickly - because it could be intended as apochryphal. In the historical context, homosexuals have been shrouded in fog - we need to very careful to note those rare instances when we have some sort of mention (although I agree it should then be carefully weighed up to ensure it is presented in a balanced and justifiable manner).

Honorius IV
I've removed Honorius IV because the entry by Salvador Miranda is the only source tha mentions his alleged marriage and it is certainly wrong. The alleged sons of this Pope mentioned by Miranda were actually his brothers: Giovanni Savelli (d. before 1279) and Pandolfo Savelli (d. 1306). See his entries in:
 * Enciclopedia dei Papi,
 * Fischer, Andreas: Kardinäle im Konklave. Die lange Sedisvakanz der Jahre 1268 bis 1271. Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom, 118. Max Niemeyer Verlag. Tubingen 2008, pp. 117-125. ISBN 978-3-484-82118-7
 * Les Registres d'Honorius IV, recueil des bulles de ce pape publiées ou analysées d'après le manuscrit original des archives du Vatican, par M. Maurice Prou, Paris 1886, p. XIV-XV & cols. 577-582. CarlosPn (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sexually active" is not limited to sexual intercourse…
as described in the article linked (Human_sexual_activity), nevertheless this article is mainly concerned with sexual intercourse between at least two humans AFAICS. IMHO this calls for some explanation or a change in wording/naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmenophisV (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Hate
This is nothing more than another anti-Catholic hate article. This page offer absolutely no real historical or educational value. Shameful bigotry and hate. Ranp (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a serious and offensive accusation to make. On what basis are you making this claim? In what way is the article endorsing hatred by providing supported and verifiable facts about the men who have been pope. If you can't back that up then I suggest you issue a retraction. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if that retraction should be notarized... Openverse (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should. I can't bear accusations that anything that deals with catholicism in a slightly 'negative' light is somehow anti-catholic and we should hide it all away in case someone sees. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest Ranp read it and wonder how he would describe the actions of the majority of popes. Racist, sexist, homophobic (the non-gay ones of course) - haven't the majority of popes been shameful, hate-filled bigots? (removed) This article is fair and honest, Catholicism could learn a lot from it.Malick78 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know Malick, have they been? I don't know enough about the popes to say, but what do you think? On a more serious note, perhaps we should make more clear that the 15 or so popes listed here do not constitute the majority, total 265. Openverse (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Contaldo80: Ranp is entitled to his opinion. To be fair, some of the points in the article even now might just be libel and tabloid nonsense - there's no shortage of people throwing that around. For example, Sixtus IV made someone a cardinal "for gifts of body" (wink wink), and had that engraved on their tomb (or should we say obelisk)? And this confirms his inclusion here as a homosexual pope? The article kinda sucks. No citation needed. Openverse (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. "Pope Sergius III (904–911) was accused by his opponent", "accused"=is that encyclopaedic? This page is a collection of rumours. Those that hate the Catholic religion may rejoice. One day in the future, someone will think clearly and change this article, in the meantime this page presents the opportunity to waste your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpthkj (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "accused" is fine. No, this page isn't a collection of rumours. No, this isn't about promoting "Catholc hate". No, we're not likely to have a rethink that completely changes this article anytime soon. Yes, you're probably better off editing other articles if you think this one is wasting your time. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Popes "alleged to be" sexually active during pontificate
It's important that this section is not entitled "Popes sexually active during pontificate", since almost all the allegations of sexual activity were made by enemies of the Pope in question, and shouldn't be treated as reliable sources.

Contaldo80 initially objected to "alleged to be" being WP:weasely, but it isn't, rather it accurately reflects the section content. He then changed the title to "Popes thought to have been sexually active during pontificate", which is weasely: it's not clear who the thinkers are - accusers of the Pope, the general public, or someone else? This is why "thought to be" is explicitly listed at WP:weasel as an example of weasel words. Wheres "alleged" doesn't bring up questions of a third party, isn't a step removed from the actual action of accusation, and is the same language used in the actual section content.

So I have changed it back to "Popes alleged to be sexually active during pontificate" again. ··gracefool &#128172; 03:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I just don't like this. "Alleged" sounds like we are in a court of law. In fact where claims of sexuality are made there is an opportunity to present counter-claims. In the absence of such counter-claims we should err on the side of doubt and go with the only evidence we have - that is so that rather than allegations, we assume the sources to reflect the true position. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about the court of public opinion, not a court of law.
 * That's ridiculous. Political enemies make all kinds of claims; there is no burden to provide counter-evidence unless they actually are in a court of law. What do you mean "err on the side of doubt" - that could go either way. A mere allegation is not evidence at all, especially when made by an enemy, who is actively trying to ruin a reputation and has strong incentive to do so even without evidence.
 * Also you haven't countered the points in my second paragraph above. ··gracefool &#128172; 01:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're showing bias in this. You're talking about "enemies" and "ruining reputations". Let's be serious about this - there is nothing implausible about popes having sex and having children. Where we have sources to say that they had sex/ children then it is reasonable to assume this was the case and thus not simply an "allegation" or a smear. If you feel a specific source is in doubt then clearly say why and present sources that reject the initial claim. Otherwise you're not approaching the article from the position of neutrality. You're starting off by assuming that popes always adhere to Catholic moral teaching. Plus you also moved Alexander VI to the wrong column for some reason. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This article was mentioned by xkcd
Xkcd what if made a somewhat hidden mention of this article. At this link,, if you mouseover the guy saying "This world sucks", you'll see the tooltip "It's not so bad, it has a Wikipedia article title list of sexually active popes". Thought folks here might be amused. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And directly referenced in XKCD 1690 on 6th June 2016, (hence the (brief) addition of List of helicopter prison escapes to this article's 'See also' section) :-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Can someone please explain to me what justification there is for this article's existence? I'm really not sure what it could possibly be. Seems at first glance to fly in the face of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And yes, I've glanced at the archived AfD discussions. Still not seeing the point. Jujutsuan (talk &#124; contribs) 06:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to set out the arguments as to why this article should not exist? Is certain knowledge to be forbidden? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked an honest question: What is the point of this article? It seems like a compilation of useless, hardly discriminate information at best, and a covert hit-piece against clerical celibacy at worst.  Put my fears to rest, if you must think of it that way.  Jujutsuan (talk &#124; contribs) 11:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the point of any article, by that reasoning? I stumbled upon it thanks to XKCD, and found it interesting.  There are thousands of articles on WP of no interest to me whatsoever, but hey, WP:NOTPAPER, and they're of interest to other people... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * This is just one example of a trend on this talk page that irks me to no end. There is no productive purpose to taking a vote on the binary question of whether Peter was or was not a "pope". The purpose of this article should be to cite sources and include referenced facts. When there are issues in dispute, that increases the amount of material to be included, not the opposite. There should be as few talk page referendums over arbitrary issues like this as possible. This article is not exactly the right place to provide the necessary context to explain why that is not the relevant question. Even if the terminology "pope" and even "bishop" would have been anachronistic at best to describe an apostle in Peter's time, that does not decrease the relevance of this information in this article. Savidan 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Peter was a pope is fundamentally relevant to this page. The fact is that, despite Roman Catholic theological retconning, the office of Pope did not exist until hundreds of years after Peter was dead. Peter was not a pope and therefore his inclusion in this page would be in error. This is not a matter for theological or historical debate- the Pope is a particular role and office which incontrovertibly and demonstrably did not exist at the time of Peter's existence. Peter was not a Pope. Aristox (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is indeed NO scriptural or other evidence that Peter was a Pope, let alone the first pope. But that he was married, is still worth mentioning, given that the Catholic Church was the first pope. --41.151.20.23 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Gregory VII and Matilda of Canossa?
In her biography Tuscan Countess: The Life and Extraordinary Times of Matilda of Canossa, Michèle Kahn Spike presents a thesis that Pope Gregory VII likely had a long-term affair with Matilda of Canossa. Unlike many of the other alleged incidents of sexual activity in this article, it does not appear that many (any?) modern sources accuse him of such, but Spike cites some evidence that their decades-long intimate relationship was, at the very least, considered improper by contemporaries. Obviously as a controversial figure often at war with the Emperor, in alliance with the Papacy, there are ulterior motives for such an accusation, so they cannot be taken at face value as proof. Yet Spike argues fairly effectively that, irrespective of those accusations, it's likely they were intimate in a manner that Gregory's own reforms would have prohibited.

Gregory VII was responsible for an extremely conservative reform of the Church (the Gregorian reform) which included suddenly and harshly imposing the long-ignored rules about priestly celibacy. If he was having a sexual relationship with Matilda at the same time, that would have been quite hypocritical of him; given the high regard the Church and most later biographers seem to have had for Gregory VII, perhaps that is why the possibility of his having broken that rule has been mostly ignored? I honestly don't know, and do not have an axe to grind either way.

I mention this source and the possibility only in the interests of completeness. Spike is (according to her Wikipedia article) a historian, expert on Matilda, and her case is still at best circumstantial. Yet it seems from a review of this article that the cases for inclusion of many entries is similarly circumstantial, so perhaps this deserves to be an entry with Spike's work as a cited source, and a clear statement that this is merely an historical theory and not an established fact. I'll leave it to the article's more involved caretakers to decide if that is a worthwhile inclusion. Leperflesh (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Really interesting - thanks for raising it. If we could secure a second source that raises the suggestion then I'd be happy to include something but on the basis of just Spike it seems a bit risky in my view. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of sexually active popes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926192741/http://www.vanimo-diocese.com/download/pastoral_letters/2005-Pastoral-Paper-On-Priestly-Celibacy.pdf to http://www.vanimo-diocese.com/download/pastoral_letters/2005-Pastoral-Paper-On-Priestly-Celibacy.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fmg.ac/FMG/Popes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713211642/http://www.uan.it/alim/letteratura.nsf/%28volumiID%29/A9E60829767DA2D2C1256D6B0074177B/%24FILE/AlimBonizoAdamicum.doc?openelement to http://www.uan.it/alim/letteratura.nsf/%28volumiID%29/A9E60829767DA2D2C1256D6B0074177B/%24FILE/AlimBonizoAdamicum.doc?openelement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715072854/http://www.uan.it/alim/letteratura.nsf/%28volumiID%29/D8115E7BB6446DC9C1256D660075CE62/%24FILE/AlimDesiderioDialogi.doc?openelement to http://www.uan.it/alim/letteratura.nsf/%28volumiID%29/D8115E7BB6446DC9C1256D660075CE62/%24FILE/AlimDesiderioDialogi.doc?openelement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be something more appropriate like- Non-Celibate Popes?
Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TappyDoggy365 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be but not obvious to me that its necessarily better? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Two cents
In reviewing a number of articles regarding popes, I stumbled upon this remarkable one. Herein are my remarks. Having read the debates above, regrettably, I remain confused. What is the purpose? Reasons given in the a AfD for retention include "Fascinating', "scandalous", and "Notoriety and notability". The same can be said for any tabloid. In fact, I think that's what the title suggests. "The sex lives of the popes has long been of interest to people". Alert the "Globe". Exactly, what is this article about?
 * The additional rationale is stated, "There is no proscription against movie stars having sex, and no one holds them up as paragons of morality," {'Tho' I doubt anyone at anytime viewed Pope Alexander VI as much of a paragon.), "haven't the majority of popes been shameful, hate-filled bigots", and "Popes are meant to be celibate." If it is to indicate that certain individuals occupying the papacy, from time to time appear, to been hypocritical regarding their vows, fine -they were probably equally hypocritical in a whole lot of other areas. But then why include those who were married before they were ordained and therefore do not appear to have done anything illicit? As there is no indication that they were "sexually active" popes, why are they here? (I would request anyone demanding proof of a negative, likewise prove that they themselves did not commit X,Y, and Z many times, on several occasions. -I hear there are tapes.)
 * All in all, this article sheds little light on the subject of clerical celibacy, -which has it's own article.
 * It is only "important to understand what people "thought" or "believed" if their beliefs actually indicate something tangible. What were proximate effects of the popes' conduct or accusations of same? This should be explored in some detail, but is never discussed. Is a table format the most efficient in this case?
 * The title is too broad. I suggest the first group of previously married men be split off. Also, those who fathered offspring before ordination were clearly not popes at the time. The third grouping should be examined to determine whether they apply either. Given the discussion over chastity vs. celibacy, perhaps the correct title should be "Promiscuous Popes" or "Popes with Amorous Liasons" -and then indicate what effect that may/may not have had politically and socially. At present it just looks silly. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No I think it's fine as it is. Nor does it have to have a purpose as an article. Knowledge is knowledge - who are we to judge how information is used. Many people think that popes can't have sex - that's a misunderstanding. The article shows that early popes were generally married. Later popes fathered children and some had sexual affairs. This - in my view - is interesting. There's no more to it than that. Some Catholics may take offence and think it's the sort of stuff we should cover away - but I can't help that I'm afraid. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That still fails to address the obvious question of why are Hormidas, John XVII, Clement IV, and Honorius IV included as there is no indication that they were, in fact, "Sexually active popes"? Mannanan51 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Honorius IV had at least two sons. To be honest I don't think the article title is perfect either but I know what it's intended to convey - covering detail about how the men that became pope were either married before becoming pope, had children before becoming pope, children while pope, relationships before or after becoming pope. I'm not against renaming it as "Sex lives of the Popes" if that's preferred or "The papacy and celibacy".Contaldo80 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Notable subject, doesn't need more reason to exist. Change the title to sexuality of Popes or something maybe one of the ones proposed above.★Trekker (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * List of non-celibate popes might be better. Jonathunder (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Pope Felix V
Let's hear it for Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, who had legitimate children before allowing numerous Christians to make him their Pope in the 1440s. One of three at the time.78.17.53.134 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Sadly antipopes aren't covered by this article. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Liber Gomorrhianus/Pope Benedict IX
Does Liber Gomorrhianus actually accuse Pope Benedict IX of sodomy, bestiality and orgies? I can't find a source outside of Wikipedia that makes that claim, and the only source given in this article is Liber Gomorrhianus, which appears to only be available in Latin. So who here can confirm that Liber Gomorrhianus actually says this? --PluniaZ (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/bookofgomorrahel0000pete Here’s a translation. It does not seem to contain those accusations, as far as I can see. Perennialpoet (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Pope Boniface VIII
Should there be note about Pope Boniface VIII? Victor Grigas (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Clement VII
Removal of some material in this article is being done on wooly grounds. There is a source that makes the claim he has a son. Yet an editor has removed it after referring obliquely to other "modern historians". Provide the source and let's consider how to address this section. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. That reason for that removal was that his inclusion was based on a passing reference about a noble who was allegedly his son. However as I explained in the edit summary of the removal, a quick look at Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence's (the noble in question) article calls this allegation a "minority view" which other authors disputed. Source:
 * I will be honest, at the time I felt that justified a removal. However, I don't feel strongly about it and am happy to leave the content included. Hope this helps, definitely did not intend to remove anything obliquely or improperly. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)