Talk:List of sexually active popes

Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine!!

The article states "According to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the pope (along with other clergy) is expected to be celibate, and is expected to be chaste as well." This is factually incorrect because clerical celibacy is not a doctrine. It is a discipline, imposed on priests of the Latin Rite, and some *BUT NOT ALL* of the Eastern Catholic Churches. In some of the Eastern Churches, married men may be ordained to the priesthood. (But, a single man, once ordained, cannot marry afterward.)

(EDIT -- I just made a correction to above noted sentence in the article, 19 Apr 2005, 18:02 EDIT)

Also it should be noted that for a single person, chastity and celibacy are the same thing. But for a married person, chastity is faithfulness to one's spouse, and responsible use of the gift of sexuality. WhFastus

VfD

On April 27, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of sexually active popes. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 09:31, May 7, 2005 (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)