NPOV?[edit]

This article seems tobe more of an opinion piece on the character of this pope (i.e. an essay) rather than an encyclopedic article. It should be cleaned up to stress facts rather than opinions methinks. (And opinions can be restated in the usual fashion that opinions are represented as in an encyclopedia)

(And yes, I realize this came from a 19th century Britannica, but that does not have modern encyclopedic standards.)

Yep, this article is a disaster. Clement VII suffered the sack of Rome by mutinous protestants of Charles V (he couldn't predict such an act) but he actually reached peace in Italy with the Congress of Bologna and eleveted Medici to royal status in Tuscany and France. Far from the disaster claimed by this article. Barjimoa (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. This article, as it currently reads, borders on character assassination. Basic biographical facts are missing, particularly in the section on Clement VII's papacy. 2601:193:8201:711F:1562:C9EE:31B3:11CB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clement VII's actions againist the Knights Templar[edit]

There should definatly be some mention of how Clement VII and Charles V acted to together in helping to destory the Knights Templar. Many would find it interesting that on October 13 1507 all Templar property in Europe was raided and seized by Charles V of France. This is how friday the 13 came to be bad luck many believe. Also his treatment of the templars could be mentions about how The Grand Wizard was burned at the stake and accuartly predicted that both Charles V and Clemont VII would die within a year as he slowly burned. I think those ideas if researched in a better fashion would be a good addition to the article

Clement V was the guy who disbanded the Knights Templars, not Clement VII. 2605:A000:1226:8039:207F:A246:2A34:C719 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)dmar198Reply[reply]
And it was Philip IV 'le Bel', not Charles V. And the time was early 1300s not early 1500s. And the Triskaidekaphobia really started (again) with Jesus and the Twelve Apostles at the disastrous Last Supper. Everybody 'knows' that. Vicedomino (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bearded Wonders!!![edit]

Nothing in Catholic Canon Law requires priests to be clean-shaven. Assertions to the contrary are yet another example of the "original research" that poses as "fact" on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.11.90 (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quite agree. Popes in 17th century regularly wore beards (Paul V, Urban VIII, etc.). It was just a fashion. Beards were frequently grown by a person to indicate passage from one stage of life to another, from youth to maturity. After eight years on this page, sufficient for all points of view to be aired, and all beards to be shaved and grown, I am removing the offending section. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pope Sylvester I (4th cent.) wears a beard in the mid-13th century mosaics at Santi Quattro Coronati in Rome.

--Vicedomino (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murder victim?[edit]

There is a category about this - where is the support in the text? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it written here Alessandro was Clement's illigitimate son? In the article on Alessandro it is merely written "many scolars believe" - without any referenced documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.10.157 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His View of the Protestant Reformation[edit]

The article states: "However, he was considered worldly and indifferent to what went on around him, including the ongoing Protestant reformation." I find this hard to believe. Anyway, I think this needs a source.85.240.21.40 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone easily comprehend who his father is?[edit]

How does this guy fit into the de Medici genealogy? Why are his parents' names omitted? --LeValley 00:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is he considered legitimate? His mother was his father's mistress, not his wife. The declaration of legitimatacy had to have been made after his birth and thus was false. Great, so now the Roman Catholic Church accepts common law marriages. Italians, the most corrupt people on the planet. I'm ashamed to be half-Italian and to carry an Italian surname. Sounds like Italians trying to protect each other, nothing ever changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.141.29 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clement VII and the Issue of Forced Conversions[edit]

This is mainly directed to Sparafucil who asked that "maybe Stogre's alleged bias needs to be set out at greater length on talk." First let me say that I agree the Paul III context is important, that is the prePaul III context is important. Clement VII was Pope before Paul III; in Sparafucil's edit he noted that the "post-Paul III context is important". Anyway, while it's clear that Clement VII and Paul III had different tones in their papal documents, the issue of forced conversion has been misunderstood. After reading a fuller translation of Intra Arcana found HERE by M.S. O'Brien, it is obvious that forced conversion is not being alluded to in this document.

In Catholic theology, there is a difference between "coming to the knowledge of God" and the act of will needed to convert to the Catholic Christian faith. I can go into more detail on this if need be, with the writings of theologians on the subject. However, I think this document will suffice. It shows here that Canon Law at the time of Clement VII's pontificate did indeed forbid forced conversions. The relevant text:

"It is necessary to gather into the unity of the faith those who are at variance with the Christian religion, through kindliness, benignity, admonition, and persuasion, so that what the sweetness of the sermon and removal of the terror of the Judge to come could achieve in leading to belief, should not be undone by threats and terrors." (Source: HERE)

On the issue of Stogre's bias, I submit that he has exaggerated what Hanke said in his original essay. On p. 116 of Stogre's book, the quote Sparafucil has cited, Stogre writes: "[Intra Arcana] advocates an aggressive militaristic approach to mission..." This exaggeration is not found in Hanke's essay who simply states on p. 79 of the collection his essay is included: "[an] order was given [to Charlves V] by the May 8 bull to use force against the American Indians if necessary in order to convert them." Again, in light of O'Brien's translation (who is an accredited translator seen HERE) I also submit that Hanke's understanding of what Clement VII authorized in the bull is incorrect. Stogre takes Hanke's misunderstanding to another level, and we can see this in other books on the Native Americans during the Age of Exploration HERE by William Marder and HERE by Wilcomb E. Washburn. What's important to note, is that these three books (among others) all talk about Intra Arcana, and all cite Hanke's essay; specifically this one quote of Intra Arcana which has been misunderstood.

While for the most part, Hanke's essay is a great insight into the time period with many excellent points, his understanding and translation of this one selection of Intra Arcana is at odds with the actual context AND with what is actually being said here. That is, the Pope was giving patronage powers to Charles V and the Spanish Crown. The bull says that Charles V had a right to use arms, not in order to force people to come to believe in the Catholic faith, but in order to govern his territory. So it's within that context that Intra Arcana mentions that a missionary work should be at least be able to exist "[so that] their souls may become partakers of the Heavenly Kingdom." This is why I submit that the charge of Clement VII "enjoin[ing] a militaristic means of evangelizing" should be removed from the page as the charge is false when looking at the actual document.

The Latin of the text for Intra Arcana can be found HERE.

-Airresister12

Clement and the Arts[edit]

Baldassare Peruzzi, Benvenuto Cellini, Sebastiano del Piombo, Raphael, reconstruction of Rome after the Sack. --Vicedomino (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clement under Leo X[edit]

Isn't there anything on him in Paris de Grassi's diaries? [yes] or Marino Sanuto's? [yes] or in the Relazioni of the Venetian ambassadors in Rome? [yes] All of these are in print, with commentaries. --Vicedomino (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nepotism[edit]

The following sentence has problems, "Like his cousin Pope Leo X, Clement was considered too generous to his Medici relatives, draining the Vatican treasuries. This included the assignment of positions all the way up to Cardinal, lands, titles, and money. These actions prompted reform measures after Clement's death to help prevent such excessive nepotism". 'Nepotism' is not the same thing as 'too generous to relatives'. Popes, for example, were allowed to grant two red hats to relatives without any questions asked. They could and they all did grant bishoprics and benefices to people who had been their supporters and who had worked for them. None of that was Nepotism. The Medici were a rich family, and very well and lucratively married. It was not they who drained the Treasury dry. It was the Imperial armies, and the need to pay for papal defense, and the need to reconstruct after the Sack. In fact Clement had a reputation for being more careful with money than Leo. The comment depends on one source, and that source should be checked for specifics. --Vicedomino (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I've sent that particular source back to the library I got it from. It did have more details on the issues under his papacy, but it is just one source, and his papal finances was not the focus (the Medici family was). If there are other sources that contradict, I don't see an issue with adjusting or removing it. 1bandsaw (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Electoral Capitulations of 1523 include a clause: "I will not create any cardinals, even at the request of some Emperor, King, Duke or Prince or other, for whatever cause, even if the grave necessity of the Universal Church is alleged, unless they are older than their thirtieth year, and have doctorates either in Sacred Scripture or in one or other of the Laws [Canon and Civil], or at least, as far as sons or nepotes of kings are concerned, competent in literature; and by the counsel and consent of two-thirds of the Lord Cardinals given by ballot. I may appoint two of my adherents and relations by blood [parentes and consanguineos] as cardinals, so long as they meet the regulations of this chapter. Likewise, except for these two, the number of twenty-four will never be exceeded...." --Vicedomino (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure which is the problem: Wictionary gives both definitions for nepotism. I see two possible controversies. 1. Whether the benefices were a significant drain. Given the placement of the paragraph in Pope_Clement_VII#Continental_and_Medici_politics, I wonder whether the reference is talking about contemporary grumblings, or whether Clement was so "considered" by those with the hindsight of the war disaster. 2. What exactly were the reforms, and was Clement their cause? Perhaps there's room for expansion at Cardinal-nephew. Sparafucil (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When one is not sure, it is probably better not to attempt to make an editorial change, IMHO. Also, Wictionary is not exactly a reliable source in such matters. It usually doesn't take into account such matters as Canon Law and Electoral Capitulations. Also, as part of Wikipedia, isn't it excluded as a source? --Vicedomino (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whitewashes his role in Henry VIII's request for an annulment[edit]

In fact Henry's request was the type often granted, especially to royalty, and Clement's refusal was based not on some lofty ideals (as the article has it) but on power politics and personal cowardice. Namely, Catherine opposed the request, and at the time, Clement was under house arrest by the Emperor, who was Catherine's nephew. 47.20.160.104 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC) captcrisisReply[reply]

Pope Clement VII & Henry VIII: "Power politics?" Yes. "Personal cowardice?" No.

Pope Clement VII endured both imprisonment and the destruction of Rome at the hands of Charles V. Charles V was Catherine of Aragon's nephew. When she protested her divorce from Henry VIII, Charles V backed her.

If Clement granted Henry VIII's divorce, he faced the real threat of Charles V's army ransacking Italy again.

Compounding matters, before Clement's papacy, Henry VIII had received a papal bull to marry Catherine. (She was Henry's deceased brother's wife.) Thus, ecclesiastically, the divorce would've put Clement VII 'between a rock and a hard place' with many Cardinals and church law.

Did Clement engage in power politics with Henry VIII? Yes. At the same time, in doing so, did Clement attempt to follow church law and also protect the citizens of Rome? Yes. Did he make a good faith effort to try to handle the situation diplomatically and fairly? Yes.

It's difficult to see this scenario as anything but a no-win for Clement VII. Blaming him for the outcome, it seems to me, is like blaming a card player for having been dealt a bad hand.

As to Clement's personal qualities, his handling of this situation with Henry VIII and Charles V shows pragmatism and an inclination for diplomacy, but cowardice? I sense that's a stretch. 174.63.43.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories