The Deposition of Pope John XII
From Parson’s Church History
In the year 931, Hugh of Provence, who, a few years previously, had been proclaimed king of Italy and had been recognized as such by nearly all the northern Italians, made matrimonial overtures to Marozia, widow of Guido of Tuscany, who had usurped the sovereignty of Rome. Marozia bestowed her hand and usurped territories upon the new king, but his arrogance soon disgusted the Romans, and led by Alberic, a son of Marozia by her first marriage with Alberic of Spoleto, they attacked the mausoleum of Adrian and the Provencal barely escaped with his life. Marozia was thrust into prison, and Alberic was hailed as patrician and consul by the Romans. With this dignity he assumed the sovereign rule of the city and duchy. of Rome, the Exarchate and the Pentapolis having fallen into the hands of the king of Italy, Berengarius II. During the Pontificates of John XI (a brother of Alberic), of Leo VII,
Stephen IX, Marinus II, and Agapetus II, the usurper was master of Rome. On the death of Alberic, in 956, his son Octavian, a boy of eighteen years, succeeded to his possessions, and the Papacy becoming vacant by the death of Agapetus II, he procured his own election to the chair. Fear of schism caused the Roman clergy to acquiesce, and the new Pontiff, John XII, was therefore certainly legitimate. In the year 962, he conferred the crown of the Holy Roman Empire on Otho of Germany, thus reviving, after a vacancy of many years, the imperial dignity, which was destined to abide with the Germans until its final disappearance. One of the first acts of the new emperor was the restoration of the Pontifical authority in the Duchy of Rome, and the restitution of the Pentapolis and the Exarchate of Ravenna. In the midst of the festivities attending the elevation of Otho, no one seems to have spoken to the emperor of the scandals of the Roman court; but when he had begun to prosecute the siege of the fortress of St. Leo, in which Berengarius II had shut himself, deputies came from Rome to inform Otho that the young Pontiff s life was a scandal to Christendom, and to beseech his interference. Believing the accusation to be a calumny, the emperor sent some confidential servants to the Eternal City to investigate the matter. The report proved true, and Otho remarked: "Pope John is a mere boy, and the example of good men will easily change him. I trust that a discreet admonition and same good advice will draw him from his evil ways, and then we may say with the Prophet, ' This change is from the right hand of the Most High.' We must first defeat Berengarius; then we shall paternally admonish our lord the Pope." When the Pontiff found that Otho was disposed to become his rigid patron rather than an obsequious friend, he repented of having conferred upon him the imperial crown, and resolved to break his power, at least in Italy. He called to Rome the fugitive Adalbert, son of Berengarius, and openly espoused the cause of that dethroned monarch. Learning, in 963, that the Pope was influencing the princes of Benevento, Capua, and Salerno, to draw the sword for Berengarius, Otho left sufficient troops before St. Leo to maintain the siege, and marched on Rome with a large army. The Pontiff and Adalbert were not prepared for this sudden move, and fled from the city. The Romans opened the gates to Otho, and three days afterwards he assembled a Synod in St. Peter's, composed of many of the Roman clergy and several Italian bishops, to consider the cause of Pope John. Peter, a cardinal priest, testified that he had seen the Pontiff celebrate mass without communicating. John, a cardinal deacon, and John, bishop of Marni, swore they had seen him ordain a deacon in a stable. Many of the clergy declared that he had consecrated as bishop a boy of ten years, and that he frequently conferred the episcopacy for money. Fornication and incest were also proved against him. He was addicted to hunting. He had deprived of eyesight and put to death Benedict, his "spiritual father;" he had caused the mutilation of a cardinal deacon. He went abroad in full armor, and girt with a sword. When playing at dice, he invoked the aid of Jupiter, Venus, etc. He never said the Office. Otho quite naturally suspected that many of these accusations were false, and he conjured the prelates and clergy, by the Virgin Mother of God and the body of St. Peter, to not calumniate their Pontiff. The whole assembly arose, and unanimously protested that of all that had been alleged, "and of more wicked things," Pope John was guilty. The Pontiff was then summoned to answer the charges, but he refused to appear, and threatened the members of the court with excommunication. Two cardinals were then sent to summon him for the second time, but they returned without having been able to serve the citation. The court then declared John XII deposed from the Pontifical throne, and in his place was chosen Leo, archivist of the Roman Church, and at that time a layman. Ordained and consecrated, he exercised the Papal functions as Leo VIII. After the installation of Leo VIII, the emperor remained a short time in Rome, and as everything seemed tranquil, he sent a large part of his army to join the besiegers of St. Leo. When Pope John heard of this diminution of the imperial forces, he dispatched agents to Rome, who soon fomented an insurrection in his favor. At the head of his troops, Otho fought for his life, and succeeded in quelling the outbreak. He then departed for St. Leo. Pope John now returned to Rome and took terrible vengeance for his expulsion. But in May, 964, he died, probably assassinated, and was succeeded by Benedict V, hitherto a deacon of the Roman Church. Otho was furious at this action of the Roman clergy, whereby his intruding Leo was rejected, and the oath taken by them in 963 ignored. He immediately besieged the city, and soon reducing it, he recalled Leo. A pseudo-Synod was then held, in which Pope Benedict was declared relegated to the rank of deacon; after which Otho exiled him to Germany, where he soon died. Leo, however, reigned only until 965, when his death enabled the Roman clergy to elect John, bishop of Narni, who ascended the Pontifical throne as John XIII.
That the life of Pope John XII was abominable, seems certain from the concordant testimony of the olden writers, such as the Continuator of Liutprand, Sigebert, and the Acts of the Roman Synod held in his regard. Baronio admits that he was "most impure, and rightly detested by all good men," and speaking of his death, which the Continuator ascribes to a direct intervention of Satan, the learned Oratorian says, "although he was warned by God with so many and so great vexations, he would not abstain from his wonted sins, and justly merited to be at length punished by God." We must remember, however, that the Continuator, upon whom we principally rely for information, was thoroughly devoted to the emperor Otho and to the intruder Leo. His testimony, therefore, is not above suspicion. Sigebert wrote more than a century after the death of John XII, and probably derived much of his knowledge from the Chronicle of Liutprand and its Appendix. But we do not intend to write an apology for Pope John XII; we grant that he was one of the very few wicked men who have sat in the Chair of St. Peter. Our Lord reminded us that the leaders in Israel are not personally impeccable "The Scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works, do ye not." Having succinctly narrated the events of his Pontificate, we merely propose to show that the deposition of Pope John XII was null and void, and that therefore the intruder, known as Leo VIII, must be relegated to the list of Anti-Popes.
Many of the olden authors, especially the Germans, who were most favorable to Otho I, seem to regard Leo VIII as legitimate. Among these are the Continuator of Liutprand, Sigebert, Platina, Trithemius, and Papyrius Masson. Among the eccentricities of the famous Launoy was an endeavor to uphold the legitimacy of Leo, and it is against his arguments that Alexandre principally contends in his apposite dissertation on this subject. Speaking of the pseudo-Synod which pretended to depose Pope John XII, Baronio says that he "had never read of any Synod in which ecclesiastical law was more disregarded, the Canons more violated, tradition more despised, and justice more outraged." Very different from this was the impression produced by the imperial Synod on the mind of the German professor Neller (1766), whose courtier sensitiveness could perceive only the promptings and effects of religious zeal in its proceedings. However, his fellow professor in the university of Treves, Martin Bender, S J., well refuted his arguments, as the reader may perceive by consulting Marchetti's Critical Commentary on the Ecclesiastical History of Fleury. Baronio proves the nullity of the deposition, of Pope John XII, 1st, from the fact that there was not a sufficient number of witnesses brought against him; 2d, the decree was issued after only two citations of the accused, while the Canons require three, nor were there granted any delays; 3d, the Synodals demanded of the emperor what a layman could not effect, that is, the deposition of a Pontiff and the election of another; 4th, sentence, properly speaking, was not pronounced; a short speech of the emperor pretended to settle so important a matter; 5th, an assembly of bishops convoked by an emperor, without the consent of the Roman Pontiff, is not a Synod, but a mere convention possessed of no authority. As we have seen, when treating of the cause of Pope Symmachus, the Roman Synod declared that, even in the Pope's own cause, no Synod could be held unless by his consent and convocation. "The aforesaid bishops," say the Acts, "suggested that he who is said to be accused should himself convoke the Synod, for they knew that a peculiar power over the churches had been given to his See, firstly, by the merit and principality of the Apostle Peter, and afterwards, according to the Lord's command, by the authority of the venerable Councils." But the chief argument against the legitimacy of the Othonian decree is found in the principle that a superior cannot be judged by an inferior. The bishops of the Roman Synod just quoted declared that "the bishop of the Apostolic See has never been subject to the judgment of his inferiors." And in the Apology which Enodius wrote for this Palmaris Synod and which the fathers stamped as possessing Synodical authority, we read: "God has wished men to decide the causes of other men, but He has reserved the rulers of that See to his own tribunal, without question. He has wished the successors of the Blessed Apostle Peter to answer for their innocence to Heaven alone."
In the letter which Avitus of Vienne, in the name of the bishops of France, sent to the Roman Senators, complaining of the Synodal action in the case of Pope Symmachus, they not knowing that the Pontiff had consented to the holding of the Synod, we read: "While we were anxious and fearful for the cause of the Roman Church, feeling that our State tottered when its head was attacked, . . . . there was brought to us a copy of a sacerdotal decree, which the bishops of Italy, assembled in the City, had issued concerning Pope Symmachus. Although the assent of a large and reverend Synod rendered this Constitution worthy of observation, we nevertheless knew that Pope Symmachus, if he had been accused in the world, ought to have received consolation from his fellow-priests, rather than judgment we cannot easily understand with what reason or law a superior is judged by his inferiors the same venerable Synod reserved for Divine examination the cause which, saving the reverence due to it, it had rashly undertaken . . . . Which being shown, as myself a Roman senator and a Christian bishop, I solemnly call upon you that you do not less respect the See of Peter in your Church, than you do the height of power in the City.
If anything weakens in other priests, it may be strengthened, but if the Pope of Rome is called into question, not merely a bishop, but the episcopate, seems to totter. . . . He who governs the fold of the Lord will give an account of his care of the lambs entrusted to him; again, it is the province of the Judge, not of the flock, to correct the shepherd."
If anything weakens in other priests, it may be strengthened, but if the Pope of Rome is called into question, not merely a bishop, but the episcopate, seems to totter. . . . He who governs the fold of the Lord will give an account of his care of the lambs entrusted to him; again, it is the province of the Judge, not of the flock, to correct the shepherd."It was in accordance with the principle that a superior should not be judged by an inferior, that St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, complained, in the Fourth Action of the Ephesine Council, of the decree of deposition issued against him by John, the inferior patriarch of Antioch; and the fathers did him justice. And because of the same principle, not on account of faith, said Anatolius of Constantinople, Dioscorus, who had pretended to excommunicate Pope St. Leo, was condemned by the fathers of Chalcedon. Since, therefore, this principle was ever held holy by the Church, a sentence of deposition pronounced against a Roman Pontiff by a handful of prelates at the bidding of a lay autocrat must be regarded as null and void. When Pope Leo III willingly appeared before a Roman Synod, in the presence of Charlemagne, to answer certain accusations, the bishops exclaimed: "We dare not judge the See of the Apostles, which is the head of all the Churches of God. By her and by her Vicar we are all judged; she is judged by no one—such is the ancient custom. As the Roman Pontiff discerns, we canonically obey." Launoy contends that the Roman Synod held by Pope John XII after his restoration, and in which the Anti-Pope Leo was condemned, is supposititious; but he adduces only the negative argument, that the Continuator of Liutprand, Flodoard, Sigebert (in the Gemblours codex), Martin the Pole, Trithemius, Platina, and a few others, do not speak of it. But the ancient Vatican codex used by Baronio in editing the Acts of this Synod is beyond suspicion, as is evinced by the fact that the Centuriators of Magdeburg do not question its antiquity. Launoy also argues for the legitimacy of Leo from the fact that the St. Leo who reigned from 1049 to 1054 is styled in the Roman Martyrology Pope Leo IX, whereas, if the Leo substituted for John XII was an Anti-Pope, the saint of the eleventh century should be called Pope Leo VIII. Launoy has reason on his side, inasmuch as the St. Leo in question was, strictly speaking, Leo VIII. But although this error has crept into the Martyrology, and the usage of centuries has sanctioned the enumeration of the Pontiffs now in vogue, the consequence which Launoy would fain derive from the custom is not a necessary one. Pope Felix (526-530), the ancestor of St. Gregory the Great, is generally styled Felix IV, as the Felix who mounted the throne in 483 is called Felix III, although it is certain that the Felix denominated Second, who was illegally substituted for Liberius (355), should be expunged from the catalogue of Pontiffs. Again, if the archivist Leo was not an Anti-Pope, then Benedict V, whom the Roman clergy elected on the death of John XII, certainly was one, for Leo was yet living and claiming the Chair of Peter when Benedict was chosen. It would follow then that the nomenclature of all the Popes named Benedict, since that time, is incorrect. Since then, both in the hypothesis of Launoy and in our own, an error in the Martyrology is manifest, it cannot be adduced as a proof that its compilers regarded as legitimate the chosen of the Othonian Synod.
Matthew Flaccius, when endeavoring to prove that the Holy Roman empire was transferred from the Franks to the Germans, without the authority of the Holy See, asserts that Otho deposed Pope John XII, and that he did so in the exercise of his imperial prerogative, which was the castigation of unworthy Pontiffs. The following are his words: " As for the letter of the cardinals to Otho, it was nothing else than an accusation against John XII, a most impure man, and a petition that, having deposed him, the emperor would substitute another and better bishop or Pope in his place; which, indeed, Otho I energetically effected, for then, as in all antiquity, the Caesars possessed the authority to chastise impure Popes. The history of this fact is fully given by Liutprand, a writer most worthy of confidence." It is absolutely false that Otho deposed Pope John XII, and that of old it was regarded as part of the imperial duty to punish wicked Pontiffs. The Pagan emperors, indeed, put many of the Pontiffs to death; heretical and schismatic emperors, Christian only by baptism, often imprisoned, exiled, and tortured the successors of St. Peter, on account of their apostolic firmness, but the truly Catholic sovereigns always treated the Popes with veneration and submission. While innumerable testimonies can be produced to show that the first duty of the emperor was to defend the Holy See, that, indeed, such was the prime reason of his dignity, and its only reason of being, neither Flaccius nor any one of his modern imitators have produced one proof that, in the constitution of the Holy Roman empire, the emperor possessed the right to judge the Roman Pontiff, either as Pope, as king, or as man. Flaccius praises Liutprand as a reliable historian, and refers us to his chronicle in proof of many insolent assertions. But this author, and what is more, Flaccius himself, testify that, guilty as Pope John seemed to be, Otho did not himself enter upon a judgment or even a trial, but called an episcopal convention at Rome, and to it submitted the cause of the Pontiff. Otho declared, says Liutprand, "let the Synod declare its judgment in this matter," and in the epistle of Otho to the Pope, given by the same historian, the emperor does not command, but respectfully entreats him to come to the Synod: "To the lord John, supreme Pontiff and universal Pope, Otho, by the divine clemency, August Emperor, together with the archbishops of Liguria, Tuscany, Saxony, and France, send greeting in the Lord. Coming to Rome for the service of God, when we questioned your sons, the Roman cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons, and the whole people, as to your absence, and why you wished not to see us, the Defender of your Church and of yourself, they alleged against you such obscenities, as would be shameful, even if charged to play actors. And lest these accusations should be unknown to your Greatness, we will briefly describe some of them Therefore we earnestly entreat your Paternity to come, and not to hesitate in proving your innocence of these charges."
Therefore we earnestly entreat your Paternity to come, and not to hesitate in proving your innocence of these charges."
Michael Fighting
