Better Ten Alexander Than One Francis

Successor of Francis? Yes, please!

For some reason Rodrigo Borgia, better known as Pope Alexander VI, seems to have reached the status of “worst Pope ever” among Catholics and Anti-Catholics alike.

Whilst the man represented many of the shortcomings of his age, and not even nowadays’ spinmeisters would dare to call him a saintly man, it is remarkable how the man allows Popes like Liberius, or Benedict IX, or John XXII to go unnoticed among the masses. Actually, in most cases if people don’t shoot at Alexander they will shoot at, say, Julius II or Leo X. All Renaissance Popes, you see. It catches the imagination. Sex, War, and Sacred Music. Still, all orthodox ones.

There is, if you ask me, a frequent mistake here, present in a rather extreme way: the confusion of the moral qualities of a man with the way he exercised his office.

No one seems much interested in the fact that, say, Churchill drank like a fish. What they are interested in is how he did his job as Prime Minister, and his private failures are considered a private problem of his exactly as his public work had a very public dimension.

This should, always if you ask me, apply even more to a Pope. If it is true that the business of saving England is of far more consequence than the private failings of the British Prime Minister, then it must be the more true that the business of being the Vicar of Christ with all this entails – worldwide evangelisation, say; or the fight against the world’s values – is of far more consequence than the business of saving England. If every souls has, being infinite, infinite value, then the business of the salvation of souls is an infinitely more important business than the salvation of Britain.

A corrupt Renaissance Pope certainly did put his soul in danger, and certainly did go to hell if he died in state of mortal sin. We cannot know with certainty about anyone of them – not even of Alexander VI – but the impressive string of very bad Popes between, say, the X and the XV century allows us to tell that very probably a number of them did not escape hell.

Such a bad Pope lost, then, his own soul. He did, in case, contribute to the loss of many other souls in his entourage. But in those times there was no Internet or Facebook, no Twitter or even CNN, not even much literacy. The private failings of a Pope were specifically known to a restricted number of people, most of them of the educated sort. Still, most people died with the same faith, the same rules, the same Mass and the same certainties with which they were born. Their world revolved around the Truths of their Faith, with which no Pope dared, or even thought, to tamper. In the economy of their own salvation, the private conduct of the Pope was pretty much near to zero.

Yes, the peasant might have known that high prelates were corrupt, but it’s not that he did not have experience of corrupted powerful men in his own environment – or that he was an angel himself, in most cases -. Yes, it might be said that the corruption of the Church was an element in the march of the great Heresies of the XVI century; but again, every illiterate peasant knew, when he rebelled to the Church, what he was doing, and note no one was more justified in being an heretic then than he is today, and many clergymen and Popes were very corrupted for many centuries before the XVI. Again, the private conduct of the Popes did not enter the life of the common people. They knew God’s rules applied to the powerful clergy as well as to everyone else, and that was rather the end of it. Wise people. They knew Alexander was orthodox; and if he had not been, I doubt they would have had any knowledge of the fact. Still, orthodox he was.

Fast forward to these disgraceful beginnings of the XXI Century. The Pope has, it can be safely said, no mistresses and no illegitimate sons; he does not lead an extravagant life; he is certainly persuaded, “in conscience”, that he is a good man. I cannot imagine he has many fears about his eternal destiny, something Alexander could at least be worried about.

Still, this man will contribute to the loss of millions of souls; he reinforces heretics and heathen in their conviction that there is no need to convert; he downplays the doctrinal solidity of the Church at every step; he leads people to believe they can be saved by merely following their conscience; he tells them they should not be “obsessed” by abortion and homosexuality; he tells everyone there is no need to evangelise; he gnaws and scratches at Catholicism in thousand little and less little ways, some of them clearly heretical, some of them merely stupid; in short, with his intellectual pride he gives scandal and confuses the faithful day in and day out, not with his private conduct but certainly with his public one.

I do not doubt in all ages past most people would have told us a Francis is infinitely more dangerous than an Alexander. More still, they might have had difficulties in even understanding the question: the privately corrupt people were part of their everyday experience, but a Pope behaving like Francis must have been, to them, simply inconceivable.

There can be, therefore, no doubt Francis is much worse, much worse as a Pope than every “Renaissance Prince” you might care to mention; in the same way as a Churchill is infinitely better than Chamberlain as a British Prime Minister irrespective of any private virtue the latter might have had.

I am not very interested in the private conduct of a Pope. Not much more, anyway, than I am interested in the private conduct of Winston Churchill. Every soul has infinite importance. Therefore, the salvation of a Pope isn’t more important than the salvation of Mrs Bridges, the pleasant neighbour of number 23. But think how many millions Mrs Bridges Francis is encouraging on the way to perdition. Pope Alexander was certainly corrupt and scandalous as far as his scandals could go; but Francis has unwittingly – but very arrogantly – made of himself a damnation machine on a planetary scale as his intellectual pride allows him to attack and sabotage Truth at every step and even persuade himself he is doing the right thing. He is, after all, following his conscience. Sounds a bell?

No. Keep your Francis, and give me ten Alexander VI instead, any day.


Posted on September 30, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Worst Pope of all time?

    Pope Paul Vi has to be in any man’s Top Ten.

  2. Spot on! For all his personal moral failures at least Alexander sought to transmit the faith in its purity and entirety and that was the core function of his office. He may have been caught up in the temptations of a Renaissance Prince, but the Catholic Faith was not in itself compromised. And furthermore, at least Alexander’s temptations were of the natural kind and what normal man of his background and circumstance, without calling on God’s grace, might not succumb. But I couldn’t imagine Alexander making little of unnatural perversion. His record in terms of presenting the integrity of the Faith stands for itself and I pray that in the end his fidelity at that level would gain him the grace of repentance for his moral failings and so permit him leave this life in God’s favour

    • That’s another thing, you see.

      I wonder how many of these tambourine men really wish that Alexander saved himself, provided of course they believe in hell in the first place. If we could read directly in their heart, I think we would be surprised.


  3. I agree with you, totally, absolutely! Bergoglio dilapidated the Church in Argentina, despised tradition, Kissed the shoes of jews all the time and blessed sodomites, lesbians and filicidal mothers, still seems a nightmare to me that he was elected Pope witch such disastrous record, he wants the Catholic Church to be a favela parish, he wants to replicate the environment that his nature is inclined towards, some days ago during the pilgrimage to the sanctuary of our Lady of San Nicolas, there were many loud effusive young men and girls with Che Guevara T-Shirts and Banners with Bergoglio face, a very old lady asked one of the boys ¿do you think that Che Guevara has something to do with this pilgrimage? and he replied: “of course, if Jesus were alive he would stand for the revolution… ” I almost fainted.. you see this is the people that Bergoglio wants for the Church.

  4. I’d like to point out that Alexander VI may not have been as bad as people think, as the few primary sources that we have from that period were quite Anti-Papacy. This article goes through everything bit by bit, and I encourage you and the readers to take a look at it.

    Not to mention the fact that the esteemed Nuremberg Chronicle praises Alexander VI extensively.

    • Yes, some have exaggerated his traits exceedingly (the Protestants, too!) and other like Lucrezia have become the stuff of legends with no solid basis in reality. Still, four children from Vannozza Cattanei alone speak a clear language.

      If memory serves, the oldest of them was killed, and he is suspected of being behind retaliation murders of those suspected of the killing of the Duke of Gandia. Also, he fathered an extremely ruthless son (a very smart and very famous one, but still a devil: Cesare Borgia, Il Valentino). It’s very difficult to get such a son out of a pious father.


  5. felicitasperpetua

    Great post, as usual. Also, let the BOR (Bishop of Rome) note that he’s being criticized on grounds other than his personal life-lest he complain about this blog’s exclusive obsession with sodomy, unbridled lust and infanticide. He should take note that in the eyes of traditional Catholics, he’s much worse than a notorious and open evil-liver in matters of the 6th commandment.

    If anything, you could be accused of being overly generous in your criticism. “Intellectual pride” would be an appropriate way to describe the failings of a man with proven intellectual achievements (such as Benedict XVI, who revealed glimpses of this in spite of his low-key public persona). In the BOR’s case, “vainglory” seems more appropriate because of the connotation of superficiality, wordliness and greed for praise from (for the wrong reasons and from the wrong people).

  6. Right one, but one small point….Churchill was not the great lion everyone wants him to be. Among others he sent to their deaths after WW II are >12,000 Catholic Slovenians, sent back to their atheistic communist tormentors and murderers…Churchill’s response to his aid being aghast at this, he is said to have quipped, “We won’t be living there anyway” as if what is it if some Slavic Catholic DPs get killed…so what? He’s more a monster than the lies in history books

    • No one is entirely the man other people say he is.

      I allow myself to doubt, though, that you would have done better than him.

      And to me, an Italian, he was the enemy.


%d bloggers like this: