Talk:Pope Leo X/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Leo X was homosexual.

Leo X was homosexual. It is proven. 90.3.24.82 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is what’s proven and sad, the fantasy of forcing historical persons on to the procrustean bed of a tired and artificial construct which never made sense in the first place. The very idea of touting Leo X as “homosexual” or analysing his “sexuality” is vacuous.

El Huinca, CarlosPn, and Kansas Bear want credible sources. To my eye, the evidence set out in multiple sections below stacks up like this:-

Against sexual immorality (the only valid issue to which contemporary sources speak):- Herculano, Roscoe, von Pastor, Gregorovius, and Samuel Edgar, who wroteVariations of Popery (London 1831, 2nd edn. 1838), announcing (Preface, p.xiv):-

. .[The author] intends in the following pages, an unmitigated and unrelenting exposure of antichristian abominations. He would . . examine every ailment, probe every wound, and lay open, without shrinking or hesitation, every festering sore. He would expose the moral disorder, in all its hateful and haggard frightfulness, to the full gaze of a disgusted world.

Not even he credited Giovio’s “infamia” passage discussed below in section 18 - where Andrew Dalby errs, e.g., in taking quod+subjunctive as causal while allowing that Giovio is reporting, not vouching for, the truth of the allegations. Of these five, the article in the section Sexuality currently notices only Roscoe, and then slightingly. Add Strathern to this group if CarlosPn’s Polish edition is correct.

For sexual immorality, but based on material inconclusive, self-contradictory, or reliant on inferences and speculation:- Giovio (see above), Guicciardini (discredited), Bayle (citing Leo’s sorry ulcer which wikipedia metamorphoses into an “anal fistula” but which, even if in the rectum - which is disputed - indicates not a wound sustained in “venerean combat” but rectal ulcer syndrome: “a rare benign disease of unknown etiology” says The Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology, 15(3) July 1989, pp.188-192), and and Falconi, not forgetting the vulgar and slanderous pasquinades which, along with the unmotivated actions of Marcantonio Flaminio’s dad, are Falconi’s main grounds.

For “homosexuality” :- Strathern (possibly - although the grounds are unexpressed by wiki-editors who supply no page reference; a former teacher of philosophy and mathematics, and, as it happens, a popular, not an academic, historian, so it may be just more speculation and inferences from ambiguous or inconclusive material).

Cheers, and good luck with that lot, then. Ridiculus mus (talk)

It's not our fault if Leo's homosexuality is proven and that this fact upset catholic people who use homophobic expressions such as "sexual immorality". They have to face it. Frimoussou (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindly stay on topic. The issue is credible sources for what is asserted, and no amount of bluster can conceal that. As for what is asserted, quite obviously a Catholic priest, prelate and pope even in the 16th c. was obliged to chastity and sexual continence, so the issue is very much sexual immorality. Trying to shut down argument by spraying meaningless terms like homophobia is a pitiful response. And who do you imagine you are speaking for with this "It's not our fault"? This isn't a game. You might consider taking a break from this page until you can assess arguments on their merits. Ridiculus mus (talk)

It seems you choose to use "sexual immorality" for homosexuality here. The fact is that Leo X was homosexual, the sources are absolutely credible. This isn't a game, but the truth. Catholics don't want to face it. It's not a surprise. Frimoussou (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The term "sexual immorality" is absolutely proper in this context. The alleged sexual activity of Leo X would be very much against the teaching of the Catholic Church, of which he had been a Supreme Pontiff. And homosexual behaviour was viewed as immoral in his time. Furthermore, I wonder your certainity about homosexuality of Leo X. Credible sources are inconclusive; there are good reason both to accept as well as to reject these accusations CarlosPn (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Frimoussou and I are farther apart than ever, not just on "homosexuality", sexual immorality, Leo X, and what constitutes "credible sources", but about the very nature of wikipedia, which does not deal in facts ("proven" or otherwise) but with statements made in credible published sources presented without bias so as to give a balanced and proportionate account of the subject of the article (I paraphrase). I choose to look at the cited sources which is where wikipedia begins and ends; evidently you - who seem to have an unfathomable store of animus against Catholics - do not. I also choose to avoid vague terms which would have been incomprehensible to Leo and his contemporaries. In these circumstances, this sterile exchange between us is now closed. When I have considered the statements in the article and weighed them against what the cited references actually say, I shall proceed to make the edits I consider needful : boldly if necessary.

Meanwhile, I note (for the information of those who are ready, willing, and able to use the talk page for the purposes for which it was intended) that it would appear Strathern (whom I have not read, but whose book is not a biography or academic study of Leo) claims Leo was "homosexual" but not active sexually. At a minimum, that puts the most recent writer in the camp of the 19th and 20th c. historians who reject accusations against Leo of immoral sexual congress, and in flat opposition to the coarse rumours peddled by Bayle ("It is thought"), by Guicciardini in Book 16 of Storia d'Italia ("Credetessi per molti"), and by the infantile authors of the pasquinades and satirical epitaphs which have no source value whatever (and are dismissed as unreliable in the article even as it stands). Giovio has very obviously been misunderstood here in talk, but not (as it happens) by Bayle who is well aware that Giovio was a firm proponent of Leo's lifelong chastity. The pretended paraphrase of Giovio in the article (beginning with the weasel word "suggesting") is a figleaf to cover someone's lack of comprehension of the original Latin. My present view is that no credible source exists asserting that Leo was a sodomite or that he ever engaged in sexual activity with anyone. Whether or not he was sexually aroused by beautiful adolescent males or merely admired their beauty (I have no idea yet what Strathern's use of the term "homosexual" might cover) is probably of little interest and less import, but I suspect that the claim in the article that Strathern and Falconi have "concluded" that Leo was "homosexual" is extravagant. Nor am I satisfied that Falconi actually asserts that Leo was "infatuated" with Marcantonio Flaminio. Nous le verrons, ne est-ce pas? Ridiculus mus (talk)

You write "I shall proceed to make the edits I consider needful : boldly if necessary" because "your present view is that no credible source exist asserting that Leo was a sodomite" (what a nice word). Precisely, it's your "present view" and nothing else : a pope, could obviously not have been a homosexual (even if he actually was) because it's the pope and therefore any source mentioning his homosexuality is by definition not credible. The sources are clear anyway : they indicate that Leo X had a reputation of chastity before he became the pope and that his homosexuality became gradually obvious after that ; then at least he had no more "a reputation of chastity", it's logic. "there are good reason both to accept as well as to reject these accusations" wrote CarlosPn. I accept, you reject and it's not surprising, but I don't think "boldly" edits to assert that he was simply not homosexual will be accepted in my view : the assertion that Giucciadini is "discredited" to take an example, is simply a POV, as well as your medicinal interpretations. Anyway, any edit had to be scholarly referenced and not "boldly" if possible. Frimoussou (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on this talkpage has been copious and valuable, but it remains diffuse and theoretical. It is time, I believe, for the material to be reassessed and applied to a constructive purpose. I therefore invite editors to join me in a sandbox search for consensus on improving this section of the article. Since it is a sandbox on my userpage, I reserve the right to moderate comments in order to maintain a forward-looking and positive momentum.

This section of the article is currently in two parts: a general review of character (overlooked somewhat), and a review of opinions expressed over time as to Leo's sexual morality. I don't plan to preempt a decision on whether this division is apt, but the transition is jarring. Examination in the sandbox of the suitability of what is written under the current sub-section "Sexuality" will not exclude the possibility of folding it back into a more harmonious and balanced treatment of "Character" overall. Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Frimoussou (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

talk you make me laugh somewhat. You get all worked up under the collar about text that suggests the vicar of Christ was "sexually immoral" despite the fact that we know that just a couple of years previous the supreme pontiff, Alexander VI, ascended the papal throne with a hoard of children and a number of mistresses. You also talk about the absurdity of a pope being homosexual, and yet happily edit articles like the Virgin of Chiquinquirá with genuinely "absurd" and impossible tales around miraculous pictorial images. Why not be honest - you don't like associating the leader of the Catholic church with the charge of homosexuality? Or else aren't you able to keep an open mind. By all means interrogate the sources - but with the objective of finding the most reasonable answer, and not trying simply to discredit "theprocrustean bed of a tired and artificial construct". The absolute certainty you have that Leo was not - and could not have been - homosexual scares me, and really suggests you are not capable of neutrality. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I also make clear Ridiculus mus that I will refuse to engage with your sandbox exercise until you can reassure me that you are capable of taking a neutral approach - and you are not trying to find a solution that meets Catholic sensibilities. Please state clearly here that you fully accept the possibility that Leo X could have had a homosexual sexual orientation. Otherwise you can do what you like with your sandbox, but we're not going to reach agreement. I have several other sources that talk about the homosexuality of the pope - and indeed the suspicion of men such as Martin Luther (which shows the importance of this issue in terms of the Reformation). Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is your collar or mine which will be the first to combust is an open question, perhaps, and others will make their own assessment about my interventions and whether you are correct in claiming I have fatally compromised my neutrality here. You are welcome to participate in the sandbox if you have anything constructive to contribute. As for my draft article on the Virgin of Chiquinquirá, if you want to exclude articles that treat of allegedly miraculous events, due processes exist for that, but I defy you to find anything there which transgresses neutrality or treats as fact any statement for which a source cannot be provided. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it does not "offend Catholic sensibilities" to say that the Vicar of Christ was of homosexual inclinations (which aren't even sins) or even a practicing homosexual, if he was. It doesn't likewise offend Catholic sensibility to say that Pope Alexander VI came to the papacy with a almost formally established concubine and a couple of children, because he did (whether he was all that much of a sexual profligate, beyond that, is another question, precisely because that isn't so sure). After all, we have it in official conciliar records that the Vicar of Christ once was an abetter of heresy, which to any Catholic (though perhaps not to a first-half 20th century Protestant) is a much more serious charge than even practiced homosexuality.

It does offend Catholic sensibilities, though, if any story which presents the Vicar of Christ in a bad light enjoys the benefit of doubt just because it presents the Vicar of Christ in a bad light; or that even disproofs or proofs of improbability aren't what they are just because they'd present the Vicar of Christ in a better light. Also, it offends the sensibility of any rational and neutral man.--2001:A61:2089:D01:CB0:94B1:3164:32CC (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a general message board. Focus on improvements to the article please. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The third paragraph of the lede starts with the sentence, In Protestant circles, Leo is associated with granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter's Basilica, a practice that was soon challenged by Martin Luther's 95 Theses, following his visit to Rome in 1512.

Whose visit to Rome? There's nothing in either Leo's article or in Luther's about a specific "visit to Rome" 1512. I am going to delete the last seven words for now. Tigerboy1966  11:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal at 13 years of age

Dr. Martin Luther, (Doctor of the Augustinian Order), pointed to the fact that Popes and Council often contradict each other. One of the primary points of Dr. Luther was that the Third Council of the Lateran, Canon 3 states, "Canon 3 forbade the promotion of anyone to a parish before the age of 25 and to the episcopate before the age of 30." There were many contradictions of Canon Law going on with these Medici Popes, and Pope Leo was no exception, he was breaking Canon Laws quite a few times. Dr. Luther's voice finally prevailed when the Council of Trent was called, and many of these abuses were corrected.Easeltine (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Alleged quote

The statement attributed to Leo, "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." is currently in the lede. Apparently the source from 1894 found it credible. Having found that both Pastor and Löffler question whether Leo actually said it, I removed said quote from the lede. Subsequently, it was reinstated with the edit summary, "... I accept whether it should be in the lead. But he's quite famous for saying it (allegedly) and so should be dealt with somewhere." I again removed the quote, pointing out that it was discussed in the text, which is what I understood was expressed on reinserting it. The alleged quote was reinserted and remains in the lede, but I added Pastor's and Löffler's qualification of same. The explanation was then deleted with the edit summary "Think this sort of extra detail is better for main body and not lead".

The quote in question is clearly intended to present the subject of the article in a less than favorable light, if not libertine, which is fine. However, given that reputable historians question whether he even made the remark, its placement in the lede appears WP:UNDUE. It is one-sided, not WP:NEUTRAL, not even-handed, and NPOV. Either both the quote and its qualification should be in the lede or neither. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see where neutrality has been violated? Contaldo80 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't say that I'm surprised. However, myopia is hardly a rational. I have given reasons for its 1) exclusion from the lede, or 2) inclusion of its qualification. Your dismissal of either suggestion, and the comment that "Think this sort of extra detail is better for main body and not lead". is inconsistent with NPOV. Manannan67 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What do we know about William Samuel Lilly? If this person was nothing but a writer and academic historian(s) question the veracity of a statement, I would remove said statement.--Kansas Bear (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done