Pope Denounced

At the Council of Rheims in 991,  Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims denounced Pope John XV saying

If, holy fathers, we are bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals, and the attainments of the humblest candidate for the priestly office, how much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the Lord and Master of all priests! Yet how would it fare with us, if it should happen that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, unworthy of the lowest place in the priesthood, should be chosen to fill the highest place of all? What would you say of such a one, when you see him sitting upon the throne glittering in purple and gold? Must he not be the "Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God and showing himself as God"?

Having been convened by the king of France, the council was repudiated by Rome, but not before deposing Arnulf. However irritated he may have been with the accusation, Pope John XV was not about to sit still for having his bishop deposed by the French king. Eventually, in the flurry of response and efforts to call another council, the papal legate succeeded in having Arnulf's deposition declared illegal. Eventually he was restored to his office.

While Pope Alexander VI did not enjoy the distinction of being denounced by his own bishop in council, it is likely due to fear of retribution. Rodrigo Borgia has a notorious reputation which has been the fodder for at least two television miniseries. The curia had degenerated to such an extent that bribery and corruption were common. The immoral excesses of Rodrigo included mistresses and several illegitimate children including Cesare and Lucretia Borgia. One of the more curious accounts of his election is contained in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

That he obtained the papacy through simony was the general belief (Pastor, loc. cit.) and is not improbable (Raynaldus, Ann. eccl. ad an. 1492, n. 26), though it would be difficult to prove it juridically, at any rate, as the law then stood the election was valid.

Clearly the Catholic Encyclopedia is a somewhat conservative source when it comes to papal scandals. We therefore have little reason to doubt when it speaks of Pope John XII.

After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955, and took the name of John. The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person — a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. War and the chase were more congenial to this pope than church government.

 John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumour, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery. Luitprand relates that on that occasion the devil dealt him a blow on the temple in consequence of which he died.

Now we come to Pope Francis who has been characterized thus...

This "Bishop of Rome," as he insists on calling himself, is possibly the worst pope we have ever had.

I think he is a fool and is taking us for fools.

Really?