Pope Innocent III

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On another list I'm on, people are discussing Pope John Paul II's
recent statement regarding evolution, Scripture, and Christianity.  One
member of that list said that he considers Innocent III the best pope
the R.C.C. ever had.  Since shortly before that reference was made to a
statement made about Innocent III being the bloodiest pope ever, I
asked (on that other list):

> Can someone provide some background for me?  I don't know much about
> 13th century popes.

I forward, with his permission, the response of "Terry A. Hurlbut, III,
M.D." <temlakos@emanon.net>:

  ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Lotario dei Conti, born at Anagni in 1161, was unanimously
    chosen Pope in 1198 at the age of 37, and chose for himself
    the name Innocent III.  Will Durant does not necessarily
    describe him as "the bloodiest pontiff," but does describe
    him as one of the smartest, best-read, best-educated, and
    most honest pontiffs that the Church ever had.  Ten months
    into his lightning-fast consecration as Pope, Innocent had,
    through various smart diplomatic moves, "made himself the
    master of Italy."  (He took the mitre at the very juncture
    at which Emperor Henry VI of the "Holy Roman Empire"
    [Germany] had just died, leaving his three-year-old son,
    the future Frederick II, as his heir.)  About five years
    later (1204) Constantinople fell to the Venetians in the
    Fourth Crusade, and for the first time in centuries, and
    perhaps for the last time, the body of Christ had true
    unity of command--that is to say, Innocent III actually
    spoke for all of Christendom.

    The important thing to remember here about Innocent is that
    he was incorruptible and uncompromising in matters of
    faith.  He would never, _never,_ concede the ground that
    John Paul II conceded on evolution.  When secular rulers
    questioned or flouted his authority, he was not afraid to
    use the tools that popes in those days had at their
    disposal--chiefly, the _interdict,_ whereby a pope could
    order that all churches in a given country stay closed, and
    hold no services, until further notice.  Beyond being a
    consummate diplomat and a brilliant statesman, Innocent was
    a reformer, not afraid to tear the lid off dirty little
    secrets, flush them out, and set things right.

    And as for the bloodshed:  the suppression of the
    Albigensian heretics occurred after Innocent was dead.  To
    be sure, the Roman Catholic Church has had its share of
    popes whose records are less than honorable--like Alexander
    VI, otherwise known as Rodrigo Borgia, the very patriarch
    of those infamous Borgias whose family name means secret
    political murder by poison.  (And this occurred during the
    _Renaissance,_ don't forget.)  But Innocent III stands out
    as one of the great ones, and arguably _the_ greatest of
    them all.  He didn't win many friends--in the end, he
    didn't win the privilege of being called "Saint Innocent"
    after his death--but he got the job done, and did a good
    job, and every historian knows it.

    Dr. Temlakos

    "Sic semper tyranno!"
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Temlakos did also ask that I provide the following information:

  ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Here's my reference:

    Durant, Will and Ariel.  _The Story of Civilization, Volume
    Four:  The Age of Faith._  What I have offered is just a
    paraphrase.

    In fact, I would encourage everyone who can find it, to
    purchase the eleven-volume _Story of Civilization._  I have
    used it to fill in some great gaps in my education;  before
    I began to read Durant, I knew almost nothing of ancient
    and medieval history.  Durant treats his subject with far
    richer detail than any high-school textbook;  he even gives
    the origin of certain words and idioms in our language
    today.  Examples:

    "Worth his salt":  In ancient Greece (Hellas), the
    aristocrats of coastal cities bought slaves from inland and
    paid for them in salt taken from the sea.  A good slave was
    considered worth the literal salt used to buy him.

    "Not worth a button":  In medieval Europe, buttons, when
    they first appeared, were purely decorative and served no
    useful function.

    More to the point:  in his third volume, _Caesar and
    Christ,_ Durant gives extensive treatment to "higher
    criticism," or the debate on the very historicity of
    Christ.  Durant draws no firm conclusion, but he says of
    the story of Christ, and particularly of the Passion:  "If
    this is not history, then it is compelling literature."
    And throughout, Durant reminds his readers that man's
    jungle instincts would destroy civilization, were not some
    appeal to a paranormal, supernatural Authority possible to
    those who endeavor to preserve the social order.  He also
    observes, ruefully, that _not a single experiment_ in
    trying to base morality on nature rather than God has ever
    worked.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Masoner