Talk:Pope Julius III

Pederast
There doesnt appear to be a reference in the article to Julius being a "pederastic lover", a category someone has placed him in. I'll remove him unless this is referenced in the article in the next few days. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He is clearly a pederast, there is plenty of information, citation is avaiable on the historical pederastic relationships page.


 * The above comment was unsigned and therefore I am going to remove the reference. 38.100.34.2 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliabilty of Ludwig von Pastor
Maybe von Pastor is a papal apologist, but he's a notable author and I see no reason why he can not be cited to show that homosexuality of Julius III is not generally admitted by all historians. I think that neutral point of view requires to include also Pastor's opinion. Even in the web page of glbtq.com included to references we can read:

"A recent biography has argued that the relation was not sexual, but the outrageous extravagance of Julius's dotage suggests otherwise: Julius bestowed benefices on Innocenzo that gave him one of the highest incomes in Europe--beyond even that of the Medicis"

admiting that the sexual character of relations between pope and his adoptive nephew is not universally recognised CarlosPn talk


 * I've made an extensive re-write of the article, drawing on more sources, excluding none of the existing sources, but sometimes correcting what I believe to be errors - e.g., I understand that Julius is buried in the Vatican Grottoes, not in the Del Monte chapel in Montorio. I think this section may now be too long - the whole subject merits a paragrpah, not all this. Perhaps it should be condensed, concentrating on the political implications of the scandel for Julius' papacy, and moving the rest to the article on Innocenzo. PiCo (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh - we've got major WP:UNDUE issues here. That first paragraph or two is great for the article on Innocenzo himself, but may not belong here. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Drastically shortened Villa Giulia and Innocenzo sections and amalgamated them into a new section on J's papacy - I think the best way to approach those topics here is to hone in on their relevance to his achievement, and let anyone with a keen interest in art history and papal smut go to the two full articles. PiCo (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How to handle the Inocenzo material
Str1977 didn't like my edits to the article (see the preceding thread for a discussion of why I made them) and made some alterations. At least he didn't dislike absolutely everything, just the way the Inocenzo Del Monte material was handled, so I'm grateful he accepted the bulk of my eforts. I've made a reversion to my original version, because I believe it's defensible, and I'd like to explain why.

Pope Julius III has very few achievements to his reign - reopened the Council of Trent, then closed it again, and supported the Jesuits, tho not very actively. He supported the arts, but only because and when it gave him personal advantage. He spent most of his time in self-indulgence, and for this he was criticised by his contemporaries, because it brought scandal on the church. And the bigest scandal of all was the Inocenzo affair. So we ned to explain just what that scandal involved - namely, it gave rise to very strong rumours and gossip that the pope was the lover of his cardinal-nephew. We can't gloss this over, it's germane to the history of the period. Everything that Str1977 wants to remove, relates to the gossip and the scandal, and is relevant for that reason. This is what Str1977 wants to remove:
 * (About the Villa Giulia): "putti play with one another's genitals amidst the vine-covered trellis of the the ceiling fresco." The decorations became part of the gossip at the time.
 * But it is also a bit of scandalising on your part, I am afraid. The passage never made clear that there was outcry against this. If it did, it should be sourced. But merely noting the decoration is off topic here. Str1977 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Far worse scandal surrounded Julius' relationship with his adoptive "nephew", Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte." Str1977 wants to change this to: "Far worse scandal surrounded Julius' adoptive nephew, Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte." But the scandal surounded the relationship, not the nephew.
 * Agree. -- SatyrTN
 * Not exactly. Scandal surounded not only alleged homosexual relations between pope and Innocenzo, but particulary dissolute lifestyle and incompetence of young cardinal (f.e. his affair with Ersilia Cortese), which discredited pope's credibility. See Tha Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church:Innocenzo del Monte CarlosPn talk contribs January 10, 2008 12:25 CET —Preceding comment was added at 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carlos. There's more to the scandal than a supposed relationship. Str1977 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Gossip called the boy Julius's "Ganymede," (i.e., a boy kept for immoral purposes, as the Greek god Zeus kept the mortal youth Ganymede)..." Str1977 wants to remove the explanation of Ganymede, but the reader needs to know what the gossip was implying.
 * I removed the explanation because a) Ganymede is linked - if they don't know about Ganymede, let them click the link to find out. b) It's a bit POV. Ganymede wasn't kept for "immoral" purposes - he was the wine boy.  Yes, they had a relationship, but it wasn't considered "immoral" at the time.  In Julius' time it was considered immoral.  But all of that is a bit too much to try to explain, and adds WP:UNDUE. -- SatyrTN
 * I'd also have to be sourced that Ganymede was a term used like that at the time, and not merely a classical allusion. Str1977 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Str1977 wants to restore this passage from the earlier versiopn (the one which existed before my edits): "Not all historians agree about the homosexual relations between Julius III and his adoptive nephew. Ludwig von Pastor in his monumental book "History of the Popes vol. 13", London 1924, p. 71 claims that although the enemies of Julius III accused him that he was natural father of Innocenzo del Monte, no accusastions of sodomy has been proved against him either in the time of his pontificate or afterwards." I've tried to refocus the article, so that we're not discussing Julius' sexuality but the scandal that surounded his papacy: the opinions of later historians therefore become irrelevant. I did this because otherwise we have this never-ending battle betwen the gay mafia and the catholic mafia over what poor Julius did in the bedroom - I want to end all that and focus on what he did in public life.
 * So removing one notable view on the matter (while retaining all the scandalising) is "refocusing". The "opinions of later historians" is not something you removed as all the stuff you mentioned is one way or the other opinions of later historians (or rather it shold be, as per WP:NOR. What you did is simply remove one particular view. That it is in contrast with the rest of the article makes it even more vital that it remains. Str1977 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For discussion - but please, no more reversions till we reach a compromise. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I didn't read here before my edits to the page. See above for my contribution to the discussion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a real risk here of descending into censorship. The material on Julius's sexuality is as relevant to him as a person as to what policy he initiated in his public life. The issue was whether any statements made could be properly cited and referenced. If they can then the material should be allowed to stay. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is all this on sex? That's dull. We should focus on the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolinda (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not sex - it's sexuality. That maketh the man. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tags
An unregistered user has repeatedly added tags to both this article and that of Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte suggesting there are issues with neutrality. I have asked them to engage constructively on this talkpage so we can fully understand, discuss and resolve concerns - but so far they have declined. Nevertheless I think we need to sort this out otherwise we'll get into an unhelpful edit war. The user makes the claims that: 'the article is POV, with too much weight is given to gossip and writings of political enemies without affirming them, and the rumours were never proven'. On the contrary the facts of the scandal were real and well documented - while we may not be sure that Julius and Innocenzo shared sexual relations; we nevertheless have a good account that Julius showed Innocenzo particular favour and showered him with gifts, it scandalised contemporaries and provided later polemic (which I accept was used by the church's enemies). This is not the same as saying that the church's "enemies" made the whole affair up. It was a significant episode because it led to changes in the way the papal secretary of state is appointed. The section is not particularly long - it only looks that way because the rest of the article is so short. The user also claims that 'GLBT online sources are not reliable' and they are 'aiming at a political cause against the Church, and exaggerate the old rumours to serve a cause'. I don't see that a GLBT website should automatically be discounted as reliable but I can just as easily add a reference to Compton's book on homosexuality in the renaissance which sets out all the same points if that is needed. As for suggestions of a 'political cause' I suggest we need hard evidence for this. 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The writings of the pontiff's enemies are well documented, yes, but just because they are well documented does not make those rumours true. If I decide to write that you are a flamming homosexual, and then have all of my freinds write the same thing so that there is plenty of written evidence of such a rumour, it does not mean an encyclopedia must enter that information in about you. Well documented rumours are still rumours, it is still libel to enter such rumours into articles of deceased persons.
 * The pontiff giving gifts to a cardinal-nephew is hardly unheard of, and does not prove homosexuality. Just look through the article Cardinal-nephew and you will see such gifts were common, and often lead to that nephew to the Seat of Saint Peter.
 * The scandal was significant, but there should not be so much inclusion of rumours nor the implication that the two actually had sexual relations. Mention the scandal, the nepotism, and a brief sentence or two perhaps about the rumours and its effects. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's start by setting out that it's fairly likely that a high proportion of popes in history have been homosexual (although that is a somewhat anachronistic term to use). Therefore it is not inappropriate to cover the issue in specific articles, where there are fairly clear grounds. Julius III is one of them. We should not see this in terms of 'enemies' and 'rumours' but rather accounts given by contemporaries, which give a perspective on the period. This will not definitively tell us what is true and what is not, but it tells us what people perceived to be going on. No, givng gifts to cardinal nephews does not prove homosexuality (it proves nepotism); that's why the other accounts help give a wider picture. Julius's relationship wih del Monte was unusually close and intense. I appreciate that some people will take a defensive approach about religious figures - but we do them no favours by turning biographies into hagiographies. I can accept some of your drafting changes but not all. Going forward I suggest we agree changes first (in the interests of balance in the article) before making them outright.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting this notion that most popes are homosexual? How is that even relevant? And yes, it is important to weed out rumours and gossip of enemies, it doesn't matter that such things where contemporary writings. If we were to include contemporary rumours, then Obaama's article would mention his socialist agenda, his communist party history and Kenyan birth. They were so prevelant and used against the Church for so long they deserve mention, but the primary focus must be on facts and that is towards nepotism and that is what needs discussed. Beyond that, you will need more proof that shows their was a sexual relationship occuring. After all, even if the pope was gay, and he did adore his cardinal-nephew in the manner rumoured, it may not have been a sexual relationship and just merely the pontiff showerring the object of his affection with gifts. If that is the case, there is still no reason to include so much rumour that implies a sexual relationship. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your call for "more proof" is a fantasy standard. Whence could it come? Surely it is relevant that contemporaries who knew the persons involved and the mores of the time, regarded the relationship as sexual. That could be stated in a simple declarative sentence without four years of tub-thumping. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be amusing to consider the question of the nature of historical truth. Flavius Josephus gives a lurid and melodramatic account of the siege of Masada which remains the conventional wisdom even though Yigal Yadin's excavation of the site disclosed no human remains consistent with the story (Yadin's explanation is weak.) What is particularly fascinating about this instance is that Josephus was the court historian of the campaign for Titus, who commanded. Josephus's account would have been known to, likely read in the presence of Titus and of Josephus himself, knowing that the story was untrue. What was the concept of historical truth in antiquity? Or in the Renaissance? Or today, given Obama's "memoirs?" Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lack of proof can not be used as proof. I can't say that you are gay because I have no proof you have a wife. You could very well have a wife, but because I don't know that can't be used to legitimize the claim you are gay. And refering to Josephus is a lark; he was an historian, and his bias was well-known for some time now and other historians know to take his version of events with a grain of salt. What cite are not the writings of historians, but the writings of the pope's known enemies. Apples and oranges.


 * It would be different if you had sources that caught them in the act, but you can only provide sources to rumours, which is, then, still rumour. Just because someone took gossip to paper does not make it fact. The sources all agree the pontiff showered gifts on his nephew, and that clearly demostrates nepotism. We should focus on the nepotism then. Because of the extent of teh scandal, it becomes necessary to mention the rumours, and there are a couple of sources included to that effect. But devoting as much space on these rumours as you would is uncalled for, mostly because there is no evidence or source that states there was actually a sexual relationship. Some hint at it, but they have cause to demean the pontiff; most sources imply the pope had an infatuation for the cardinal, but those sources also show that the pope's affection was unrequited. There is no reason that a third of this article needs to be of these unaffirmed rumours. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Using words like "gay" is anachronistic and unhelpful. I must make plain my views on this issue. You will be hard pressed to find an historical account of Julius III's pontificate today that does not talk about the Innocenzo scandal. In fact most historians only talk about the scandal - noting that Julius achieved very little else during his pontificate (so difficult to argue WP:UNDUE). The text as we have it in the article does not establish whether Julius and Innocenzo had a sexual relationship; but it does set out clearly that the attention given to Innocenzo was a significant cause of contemporary scandal. I accept that inevitably those who made most of the scandal were subsequent protestant writers - but that does, of course, not mean that they had to make it all up. And the point of including the section is to show how indeed the protestants were able to use the scandal to further political/ religious objectives. Nor is talk of enemies helpful - I've already cited references to Pope and Caraffa who counseled Julius against his attentions. And you also dismiss the account of the Duke of Bracciano, one of the leading Italian Catholic nobles of the day. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite right carlospn, it was Julius II and not Julius III. My mistake! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't say "gay" on talk pages because talk pages existed before gay? And how is it unhelpful? Should I say the pope is a before-the-word-gay-meant-what-it-is-taken-to-mean-today man who had alleged infatuations and even alleged affairs with other men? Seems like saying a word that everyone understand when refering to the actions that word encompasses would be more helpful than explaining what the word means in it's place and then going on to explain that such a word is anachronastic as well.
 * Most historians skip over Julius. So arguing on what historians do would mean this article needs delted for not meeting notability.
 * And you can try arguing that you haven't written "it's a proven fact they had sex" but there was so much gossip and rumour in this the article that every reader will leave the page thinking the two had a sexual affair, and that Wikpedia supports that as fact. If you make a third of the article imply that it is fact that the pope was gay and had sex with the cardinal, and then counter it with a single sentence at the end of the article saying "but it might not be true" looks like unfair wait is being given to one side of the argument.
 * It's fine if you want to focus on the ramifications of the scandal, but there is no need for so much implication about the pope. Carafa warned agaisnt nepotism, and further warned people start rumours about such attention. Seems to hold true still all these centuries later.
 * The fact that you have to say of the pope's enemies, "
 * Oh, and libel is still a fair argument. There isn't a time frame on it; libel isn't defined by maligning living people, nor by maligning people of any particular century. You might be confusing legal limitations with the definition of the word. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Gay' is a 20th century term so you can't really use it in this context. Julius III wouldn't have understood, nor would his contemporaries. That aside shall we try and be constructive? Do you have concerns about specific sources of specific wording - in which case bring them here and we'll see whether we can resolve the problems? Likewise if you think the article deals too much with Innocenzo then I would strongly encourage you to devote some energy to other issues in Julius' life in order to enlarge the article and better inform the reader; rather than take away what we have. Ultimately all we can do is present the issue, set out contemporary views, establish arguments for and against and then let the reader follow up. I accept that this might mean that there was no actual romantic or sexual dimension to the relationship; but at the same time you must be open to the possibility that there was. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't call for the remvoal of the incident, I merely call for fair treatment on it towards the pope since the allegations were never proven. It isn't balanced to include commentary, mostly gossip, from several sources taking up a third of the article, and then offer as the counter argument, "though it wasn't proven" as a short, lonely sentence at the end. I think no ore than two sentences should concern the supposed sexual affair, but the nepotism can be discussed in depth as it is well-known and not in dispute. This isn't the first time a pope has been accused of homosexual acts, nor the first pope to be accused of giving offices in return for sexual favours, nor the first pope to have been alleged to have slept with a family member. It was a common charge used to discredit pontiffs in the past, Julius was simply so secluded in his palace that he didn't eventake charge to defend his actions. That does not prove the rumours true, though. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say the allegations were proven. It simply describes the affair, sets out what contemporaries thought and how the scandal effected subsequent papal government. If you think the counter arguments are not strong enough, then I suggest you find a source or sources that set out clearly why contemporary accounts should be set aside and we can add that in as well. I have yet to see you present any evidence that shows that there are counter contemporary accounts that have been missed. I'm not interested in proving one way or another whether Julius and Innocenzo were lovers; likewise I'm not interested in dismissing anything controversial or unsavoury just because Julius was the pope. I just want a full picture.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You want contemporary writings describing what the pope wasn't doing. You are asking for evidence that won't exist. No one wrote that Julius III wasn't killing babies, yet we don't add to the arricle "we have no contemporary accounts that the pope didn't murder small children, therefore it is still a possibility that he did". People don't write down things that aren't happening. And adding to the article to make the section on the rumours look smaller is not the issue; the amount of rumour included in the aritcle is. No matter how much I or you expand on the life and career of Julius III, I still take issue with the rumours. How about you find something factual to include in the article? That would be construtive. 50.44.172.227 (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask - have you actually read any books about the life and pontificate of Julius III? If so, would you mind clarifying what they were? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the respective passage about "Innocenzo affair" is balanced and fairly represents what we know about it. I see no justification for the neutrality tag or "undue weight". I regret only that there is no citation from the biography of Innocenzo del Monte by F. Burkle-Young. Miranda's entry does not touch the problem. Has anyone access to this book? As far as I know, the authors of this biography rejected the sexual character of relationship between Julius and Innocenzo, but I was unable to verify it and I don't no what arguments they presented to dismiss the charges CarlosPn (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A helpful contribution. I haven't seen the Buckle Young work I'm afraid (wasn't even aware of it). Agree it would be nice to present this perespective. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Frustratingly I've only been able to get limited access to Buckle-Young online, but has at least allowed me to make some small amendments (arguing that the comments by the venetian ambassador refer to the possibility he was the valet de chambre). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags
Please stop removing the tags. When two editors have a content dispute, one can't declare himself the winner and remove tags without consent. The tag links the article to disputed pages and allows other editors to find the article and weigh in. Consistently removing the tags prevents this from happening. Bellae artes (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you the same editor as 50.44.145.236 above? I'll leave the tags for a little while, but we really need to have clear details of where neutrality is a problem. Despite my best efforts this has still not been clarified. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok - looks like we have 3 editors now that believe the text we have does not present serious issues in terms of balance and neutrality. I'm happy to try and make it even better (and welcome thoughts), but for the timebeing I think it means we can remove the tags. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The tag says "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message." Please follow those instructions. Notice it mentions a single editor is all that is needed to place the tag, and note that the tag can not be removed until the issues are addressed. This does not mean take a vote, that the discussion should be one or two yelling about this or that for an hour and then the tag removed, but that the issues be resolved. Bellae artes (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the liberum veto. It is good that Wikipedia has adopted so modern, progressive, and efficient a procedure. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the section is problematic. The tag can be removed: Bellae artes is the only editor complaining, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a puzzle or riddle, the tag actually says not to remove it. Follow directions. Bellae artes (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't use the imperative with me. You're wrong and everyone says so. You've caused enough disruption and it is time to drop the stick. I understand that the combination of zeal and only 134 edits can lead to this and that's fine; now you have been told by a number of editors, one of whom an administrator (me), that you were wrong. For your moment of zen: the tag does not say what you want it to say. For another: no single editor can hold up progress in this way. Wikipedia reaches decisions by way of consent, and there is a clear consent that your tag was wrong. Time to move on. Replace the tag one more time and I will make sure you are blocked temporarily edit-warring and disruptive editing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Undue-section: Revision history does not show any authority for the creation of this tag for its use as here proposed. The mere existence of the tag imposes no obligation on the community to "follow directions." Fatidiot1234 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

revert to stable 2008 version
I was astounded to find that this article has been substantially altered in an attempt to whitewash Julius' reputation. Naturally pious Catholics have always found this particular pope something of an embarrassment, but we need to present an unbiased, solidly-based account here. I've restored to the version which has been pretty stable since 2008. PiCo (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry PiCo. While I can support many of the changes you've made, I feel that the section on the Innocenzo scandal is worse than we had it. It's lost a lot of good reference material which set the context in quite a balanced and non-biased way. If there are specific problems you can identify then let's discuss them but otherwise I would rather we bring back the last version please. To help with this I've copied the old text below to look at what causes the most problem:

VERSION I: Julius's particular failures were around his nepotism and favouritism. The most notable scandal surrounded his adoptive nephew, Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, a beggar-boy whom the del Monte family had taken from streets of Parma and hired as a groom in their household. Julius' brother was persuaded to adopt Innocenzo, and Julius "clung to him with a love that was inexplicable as it was incredible". Upon Julius' election to the papacy, Julius raised the still uncouth and quasi-illiterate Innocenzo to the cardinalate and immediately appointed him Cardinal-nephew, showering the boy with benefices which included Commendatario in June of 1552 of the abbeys of Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy and S. Zeno in Verona, and, later, of the abbeys of S. Saba, Miramondo, Grottaferrata and Frascati, among others. Both Reginald Pole and Giovanni Carafa reminded Julius that this was a shameful abuse of Papal power, and made him aware of the "evil suppostions to which the elevation of a fatherless young man wold give rise".

The perception that unworthy figures were advancing because of sodomitical affairs prompted contemporary denunciations. Most notably Joachim du Bellay, who lived in Rome through this period in the retinue of his relative Cardinal Jean du Bellay, and who expressed his scandalized opinion of Julius in two sonnets in his series Les regrets (1558), hating to see, "a Ganymede with the red hat on his head" The Venetian ambassador reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed (which perhaps may simply mean he served as valet de chambre). Girolamo Muzio wrote in a letter of 1550 to Ferrante Gonzaga (Governor of Milan): "They write many bad things about this new pope; that he is vicious, proud, and odd in the head" - the last alluding to homosexuality. Burkle-Young argues Julius was simply attracted to Innocenzo's intelligence, wit and charm. Ludwig von Pastor, although himself rejected the allegations of homosexual relationship between Julius and Innocenzo, admitted that Julius himself was to blame that such an idea should have arisen and been believed, as his attitude towards Innocenzo del Monte must have given rise to the gravest suspicions, especially at a time of such unbridled license. The scandal also spurred Calvinists and Lutherans to issue Protestant polemic that would span a century. Thomas Beard clearly exaggerated in the Theatre of God's judgement (1597) to argue Julius',"custome was to promote none to ecclesisatical livings, save only his buggerers". The Swiss Protestant, Thomas Erastus, reported that awaiting Innocenzo's arrival in Rome, Julius had showed the impatience of a "lover awaiting a mistress", and that he boasted of the boy's prowess. ".


 * Contaldo80 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to help make comparisons, here's the restored 2008 (approx) version: VERSION II: Julius's particular failures were around his nepotism and favouritism. One notable scandal surrounded his adoptive nephew, Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, a 13 or 14-year old beggar-boy whom the future Pope had picked up on the streets of Parma some years earlier.[8] On being elected to the Papacy Julius raised the now 17-year old but still uncouth and quasi-illiterate Innocenzo to the cardinalate, appointed him cardinal-nephew, and showering the boy with benefices – Abbot commendatario of the abbeys of Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy, S. Zeno in Verona, June 1552, later of the abbeys of S. Saba, Miramondo, and of Grottaferrata, Frascati, and other appointments – to the point where his income was one of the highest in Europe.[1] Gossip called the boy Julius's "Ganymede", and the Venetian ambassador reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed. The relationship became a staple of anti-papal polemics for over a century: it was said that Julius, awaiting Innocenzo's arrival in Rome to receive his cardinal's hat, showed the impatience of a lover awaiting a mistress, and that he boasted of the boy's prowess.[1] The poet Joachim du Bellay, who lived in Rome through this period in the retinue of his relative Cardinal Jean du Bellay, expressed his scandalized opinion of Julius in two sonnets in his series Les regrets (1558).[1]

Despite the damage which the affair was inflicting on the church, it was not until after Julius' death in 1555 that anything could be done to curb Innocenzo's visibility. One outcome of the Innocenzo affair, however, was the upgrading of the position of Papal Secretary of State, as the incumbent had to take over the duties Innocenzo was unfit to perform: the Secretary of State eventually replaced the cardinal-nephew as the most important official of the Holy See.[9]

I feel version I is too long - the point to be made is that the Innocenzo brought the papacy and the church into disrepute. That's a matter of taste and judgement I guess. But I question the following passages from version I: PiCo (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "...a beggar-boy whom the del Monte family had taken from streets of Parma and hired as a groom in their household." Not quite: it was Julius who picked him up on the streets, not the family, and he was found a place in the household of Julius' brother. He wasn't a groom, either, he was in charge of the monkeys.
 * "Julius 'clung to [Innocenzo] with a love that was inexplicable as it was incredible' (ref: L. von Pastor, The History of the Popes)." It might be inexplicable to Mr Pastoor, but the rest of the world has had no such failure. Pastor is not a reliable source: he was a very, very devout Catholic, and his "history of the popes" is no better than propaganda.
 * "Both Reginald Pole and Giovanni Carafa reminded Julius that this was a shameful abuse of Papal power, and made him aware of the "evil suppostions to which the elevation of a fatherless young man would give rise". This adds nothing to the article, unless the point is to show that Julius disregarded good advice.
 * "The perception that unworthy figures were advancing because of sodomitical affairs prompted contemporary denunciations." This is unsourced, and I have doubts that the plural has any basis - so far as I know, Innocenzo was the only "sodomitical" figure who was advanced.
 * "Most notably Joachim du Bellay..." There's nothing "most notable" about Bellay, he was a pretty minor figure in the period - he's only mentioned because he was also a poet, and wrote some poems, and illustrates how widespread the scandal and gossip became.
 * "The Venetian ambassador reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed (which perhaps may simply mean he served as valet de chambre)". Baloney. If that were all it meant, the Venetian ambassador wouldn't have bothered mentioning it. Is there a source for this, apart from the egregious Pastor?
 * ""They write many bad things about this new pope; that he is vicious, proud, and odd in the head" - the last alluding to homosexuality." Says who? And a source in Italian won't do - sources need to be verifiable, i.e., in English.
 * "Burkle-Young argues Julius was simply attracted to Innocenzo's intelligence, wit and charm." The wit and charm of a 13 year old? A bit like Michael Jackson sharing his bed with Jodie Chandler, eh? I think the source is being misrepresented - Julius was certainly attracted by Innocenzo's wit and charm, but there was more to it than that, and I think B-Y would say so. Please check your source - is the word "simply" in there, or has it been added?
 * Ludwig von Pastor, although [he] himself rejected the allegations of homosexual relationship between Julius and Innocenzo, admitted that "Julius himself was to blame that such an idea should have arisen and been believed, as his attitude towards Innocenzo del Monte must have given rise to the gravest suspicions, especially at a time of such unbridled license". As noted, Pastor is a propagandist, not a historian.


 * "And a source in Italian won't do - sources need to be verifiable, i.e., in English." Begging your pardon, is that truly the policy? That seens a bit provincial; the source isn't in Basque. :Fatidiot1234 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you, but my ability to verify a source in Italian is a bit limited.PiCo (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't read Dante in the bathtub, but I can fake my way in Italian, and I have IM Translator on Firefox and Google Translate (which does have Basque) on my toolbar. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't read Dante at all, except in translation; but I think we owe it to our readers to use accessible sources. IS there really no alternative to the Italian one?PiCo (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I avoid Dante in any language. I agree with you about what was done to the article, a wretched struggle over several years. I also agree with you about the need to use accessible sources. I was just irked by your phrasing this as a rule. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PiCO, I think we have a misunderstanding here. I'm not intending a whitewash concerning Julius' relationship with Del Monte. On the contrary I have put a lot of effort into researching the subject so that rather than being hidden away the subject is brought fully out into the light. To that extent I think the draft above sets out quite clearly that Julius had a strong infatuation with Del Monte, that this was commented on by contemporaries, that he was advised to temper his enthusiasm by others, and that the issue was used as ammunition by propagandists. Rather than dismissing Von Pastor as a propagandist (which I agree that on the whole he was), by citing him I've tried to show that even he pretty much thought something serious was going on. I therefore make again a plea that we restore as much of the material above as we can as I think it sets out quite a powerful narrative. I'll try and address your specific points as well:
 * If he was found a place in the house of Julius's brother then it is quite correct to say that he was taken off the streets by the family - I don't think that this denies the directing role of Julius. But not a huge point.
 * Von Pastor's quote shows that he tried to address the issue of the relationship (albeit in a limited and imperfect way). He's still relatively respected and I do't think his quote plays down the issue.
 * Pole and Carafa - really important that we show there was awareness even within his immediate circle. this wasn't just something in the imagination of others.
 * The sentence on sodomitical affairs is taken from the Johnson book. I agree there's nothing to suggest anyone beyond Del Monte. It's just I suspect a turn of phrase - we can amend if you think we need to make it more precise.
 * Again I've used 'notably' as a turn of phrase but I'm sure we can relace it with a more innocuous word if it helps.
 * The valet de chambre point is not Von Pastor but Johnson I think. Actually it's not that unlikely an intrepretation for an ambassador to make - while still implying a sexual dimension. an take out if you prefer.
 * The original source is in italian as it was spoken by an italian. I can read Italian and verify it - the source in which the point is in any case made in english.
 * It's not unreasonable to provide a ref to Burkle Young and Von pastor. We don't have to agree with them but I think it's only fair to present both sides of the case.

Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My small contribution to that discussion:
 * Ludwig von Pastor had strongly pro-Catholic view but this does not neccessarily mean that he was "propagandist, not historian". He is still respected historian, widely cited even now. He used many contemporary sources and documents. We may not agree with his conclusions (and I do not agree with him in the case of Julius and Innocenzo) but certainly this is a serious voice in this controversy
 * The book of Burkle-Young is the only complete, scholarly account of the biography of Innocenzo del Monte. I was unable to consult it personally, but I think it would be a great mistake and violation of NPOV not to include his opinion, even if we do not agree with him
 * Concerning the citation from the report of Venetian ambassador, we have to remember how it sounds as a whole: "[Julius] took him [Innocenzo] into his bedroom and into his own bed as if he were his own son or grandson" (Who is who in gay and lesbian history, p. 235). This passage is quite ambigous and we may interprete that Dandolo suggested a paternal and not necessarily a sexual character of this relationship (I mean that both interpretations may be defended)
 * In conclusion, I would favour the Contaldo's version instead of PICO's reverts. CarlosPn (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, then by all means. Just be a little careful: if you start arguing that Julius was or was not having sex with Innocenzo, you'll get into endless arguments with those who feel the opposite. Concentrating on describing the scandal that existed at the time and the damage it did avoids that problem. PiCo (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PiCo, you are quite right to emphasise the need to focus on the scandal and the damage. I accept it's always difficult trying to establish who was (or was not) sleeping ith who 500 years ago. That's what I was hoping to do with my version above. But before I restore can I check that you are happy for me to do that? Many thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means :)PiCo (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Venetian ambassador
One of our editors is misinterpreting the following passage from our secondary source, Crompton: "Roman satire called the ill-favored boy Julius's "Ganymede," and the Venetian ambassador reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed."

Our editor believes that the ambassador is exonerating Julius from any sexual motive in taking Innocenzo into his bed. In fact quite the opposite is the case. As can be seen from the full quote above, Crompton links the "Ganymede" gossip with the ambassador's report - in other words, they're both saying the same thing ("A and also B"). In fact, while it was common enough for people in medieval Europe to share a bed, it wasn't regarded as desirable, and happened only when there was no choice - travellers at an inn would share a bed, for example. But when there was no compulsion, people slept alone, or with their wife, or, at a pinch, with close family members. This is what the ambassador is getting at: Innocenzo was not a member of Julius' family (or not until he was adopted in), and there was no good reason for a man of Julius' wealth and position to share his bed with him - unless, the ambassador is implying, Julius was in a sexual relationship with his "Ganymede". Remember that Venice was no friend to the papacy at this time, and the Venetian ambassador would never attempt to cast a benign light on Julius' relationship with Innocenzo - quite the opposite. In short, we should stick to what Crompton says, and not (mis)interpret it. PiCo (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And if the pope couldn't afford a separate bed then who could! The ambassador was clearly being tongue in cheek.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The ambassador's quote is "He [Julius] took him [Innocenzo] into his bedroom and into his own bed as if he were his own son or grandson". Not just into bed, as PiCo makes it sound, but into his bed as a father takes his son into bed. This is not sexual, and if PiCo believes it to be then his relationship with his father is not the norm and he needs to know that his abnormal relationship with his own father is not being referred to here by the ambassador.


 * It is also original research to claim when and when not people from another culture and another era would find it acceptable to share a bed, let alone how often and with whom on what occasion. This is not the first pope to share his bed and be attacked for it, the Borgia pope Alexander was accused by his enemies of having an incestuous relationship with his daughter because he shared his bed with her until she was a young woman. Elsewhere about this time, Henry VIII of England established the positions of Gentleman of the Bed Chamber, posts usually filled by young men who were also children of nobles that slept in the King's bed to help ensure his safety. This did not mean the king was cuddled up with the gentlemen on a full-size bed, but rather the bed was so large as to allow ample space for the king to sleep while a gentleman or two would sleep at the foot of the bed.


 * Also, the idea that the Ventian ambassador would never defend the pope and thus "clearly" meant the quote to be sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek is also original research. There is no evidence of that. It is not in the quote. To dismiss the quote as being inaccurate because there was no reason the Venetian ambassador to the pontiff would have reason to say a kind word towards the pontiff is also original research not based on any facts. First, the Ventians have to send this ambassador to the pontiff, then the pontiff has to accept him and host him in the Vatican, then the ambassador must stay int he pontiff's good graces to prevent from being denied access or being recalled. There are more reasons for the ambassador to defend the pontiff then attack; in fact, his job somewhat depended on it. 50.44.156.233 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? The Papacy hated the Venetians and vice versa. And interesting though your arguments about bed-sharing in the early modern age can you please provide some sort of supporting reference otherwise it's fairly speculative. The ambassador's quote might equally have been intended to express surprise. Julius took Innocenzo to his bed as if he was his own son - ie he could get away with it and no-one would raise an eyebrow - but he wasn't his own son so people clearly would raise questions. It was odd behaviour even for the time.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not two states are at odds, the fact that there is a Venetian ambassador in the Vatican shows the two sides could be civil. The pope would not keep a man at his court that was spreading gossip and rumour, attacking him personally or so on; and the Venetian ambassador would be diplomatic regarding any situation, since he is a diplomat after all. Many Western powers maintain ambassadors in China despite tensions, and during the cold war these powers also maintained ambassadors with the Soviet Union.


 * As for the bed thing, you say my points are speculative but act as if yours were not ("And if the pope couldn't afford a separate bed then who could!", what source did you take that from? What information are you using to come to the conclusion that the pope was most suited at affording multiple beds in this period? And what source states that it was "odd behaviour" to share a bed during this period? You did not provide any citations, please do or we must conclude by your own standards this is all OR and speculative). Anyways, for some information about bed-sharing during these times, see [Ahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/19/monarchy.france this article] about the English King and French King sharing a bed together; the article goes further to state a king's "favourite servants slept at the foot of his bed". Not odd behaviour after all for two men to share a bed, nor a monarch to allow servants to share his bed.


 * I am not certain what you are arguing by your statement, "Julius took Innocenzo to his bed as if he was his own son - ie he could get away with it and no-one would raise an eyebrow"; are you implying father's would do sexual things to their sons at this period in time and could get away with it? This is completely a shock to me, please provide your source that states fathers 'got away with' such vile acts towards their sons during this period. The ambassador was implying the relationship between pope and cardinal was just as innocent as the relationship between father and son, and that when a father would allow his son to sleep in his bed with him there was no alarm to be made because it was an acceptable practice.


 * You are applying your modern social norms to an event that happened in another time period with another ethnic group in another society; you must realize that social norms do change with boundaries, culture and times. That is why Prince Charles will one day be able to be king despite his divorce, even though in the past King Edward VIII had to abdicate the throne because he married a divorcee. 50.44.156.233 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "You are applying your modern social norms". I am doing no such thing. I am a graduate of history and studied the early modern age in some depth. The popes were among the richest men in europe at the time - to pretend they could only afford one bed in their apartments is absurd, and to base an argument for bed-sharing on those grounds is extremely silly; if you don't grasp that point then we're wasting our time. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The ambassador's quote is "He [Julius] took him [Innocenzo] into his bedroom and into his own bed as if he were his own son or grandson"." The point the ambassador is making is that Innocenzo was NOT Julius' son or grandson. It's also important to get the sequence of events right: (1) Julius "picks up" Innocenzo (aged 13 or 14)in the streets of Parma and gives him a job in the household he shares with his brother; (2) Julius is elected Pope, the brother adopts Innocenzo so that Julius can name him Cardinal-Nephew (this within months of the election),while Julius issues a decree declaring Innocenzo legitimate and giving him a birth-date that makes him 17; (3) Julius shares his bed with Innocenzo. With the best will in the world it's hard to see a lot of innocence in this. PiCo (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It was a scandal because the behaviour was scandalous. I don't remember reading any accounts that mention that the papacy was in such a poor state of finance that the poor pope had to sleep on a straw mattress or something and all the servants had to sleep in the garden. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The kings could also afford beds, yet, they shared beds with one another and their servants. That was in the source I provided you both. You may have been a student, PiCo, of the the early modern age and papal bedroom sets (I didn't know there was such a study!), but professors and doctors seem to contradict your opinion. I would take the word of the teacher over the student. And the quote isn't about how the cardinal was not related to Julius, but how the cardinal was like a son to the pontiff, and how the relationship was equally as innocent as that of a son and father. Your bias, PiCo, is clear when you write "it's hard to see a lot of innocence in this"; you clearly have an agenda here and are not at all interested in writing objectively. 50.44.152.97 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read more carefully. I am the student of the early modern age no Pico. Kings did not share beds with each other and servants. The example you give of Richard I sharing with the French king was symbolic (if indeed it did occur in a genuine way) in order to underline the intimacy of a political alliance. And what professors and doctors are you going on about?! You interventions are baffling. If the cardinals surrounding Julius (Pole and Carafa) though the situation was likely to be seen as lacking innocence, then you should not be surprised that we continue to do so now. I think it's you that's lacking objectivity - you want to prove that Julius was not involved with Innocenzo. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

--Talmud burnings--
This article should at least reference Julius III's prohibition of printed Talmuds and the subsequent burnings in Rome. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilahg (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Role in Church of the East's Schism in 1552
There should be some mention of the Schism of the (Nestorian) Church of the East in 1552, and one of the schismatic faction's re-entering into communion with the Roman Catholic Church via embassy to Pope Julius III to consecrate the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church. Jhanschoo (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorted in LGBT cats

 * Category:LGBT Roman Catholic popes

Pope Julius III was a LGBT Roman Catholic pope. That should be sorted in catsegory. --188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle


 * Agreed. The gentleman trying to block this change recently violated the 3RR rule. natemup (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Better sources are needed as per WP:LGBTCAT. Needs academic consensus, no a single non-academic magazine.Eccekevin (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources and content already in the article establish that he was deemed homosexual, which is why he was categorized as LGBT long before today (until you removed the cat without consensus, ironically enough). natemup (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide several secondary academic sources that describe him as LGBT. Inferring from rumors and scandals as you said before is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Such additions are debatable as you've also been told by User:Ohnoitsjamie. Magazine articles like Advocate are non-academic sources. Placing long-dead figures in distinct bins like categories should be done very carefully (especially for categories like LGBT identity, which can be tricky since they depended on context and understanding of human sexuality, which can vary greatly through time and cultures). You need to gain consensus before such a change. Eccekevin (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)