Having just finished a biography of Lucrezia Borgia I found the accounts of her father Pope Alexander VI fascinating. Corrupt, sinister, covetous and possibly the lover of his daughter, he is everything a Pope (not to mention a person) should not be. So what’s the official Vatican line? I’m sure they don’t defend him but do their historians have an excuse? Does his portrait hang somewhere in the Vatican? How does this jibe with the notion of Papal infallibility? Is there an official reason why God looked the other way when Rodrigo ascended the throne?
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry for Alexander VI seems to freely admit that he wasn’t the most holy Pope in history. (But also covers his good sides too.) The last paragraph or so pretty much covers your question. Lots of words there but “the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor” (so says Pope Leo I (the Great)) seems to about cover it nicely.
The concept of Papal Infallibility only applies when the Pope is speaking officially (ex cathedra) on matters of church doctrine. It doesn’t have anything to do with how he lives his life in general, and doesn’t mean he is infallible in other matters.
The most famous of all portraits of him is arguably that in Pinturicchio’s Resurrection in the ‘Borgia Apartments’. Admittedly it’s a fresco, so taking it down isn’t really an option. But the Vatican Museum can hardly be said to be embarassed by the Borgia connection.
Did he ever try to alter Church doctrine to OK corruption, coventousness or incest?
Nope- as bad as a Pope may be, even if he ends up in Hell, God prevents him from actually taking the Church to Hell with him.
During the middle-ages, the Catholic church clearly stated that the actual behavior of clerics had no bearing on the validity of their religious duties. In particular, that the sacraments given by a sinful priest were perfectly valid. Since it was in response to the position adopted by various groups deemed as heretical, arguing over this issue could get you sent to the stake.
AFAIK, it still applies and I would think it applies as much to a a decadent pope than, for instance to a priest molesting children.
Actually, by the way, it seems to me that it’s very consistent with the christian doctrine. All men bein sinners, a priest or pope will necessarily be too, some in more blatant ways than others, of course, but still equally sinners in the eyes of God (and also still equally able to be forgiven providing they go through the proper motions/repentance/whatever).
So, the validity of the religious duties of a cleric can’t be dependant on his behavior, as judged by men. These people are, sort of, only “vectors” of God’s grace, and for instance the absolution given by a child molestor coming from god, not from the priest, is still perfectly valid. Besides, for all your know, god might have forgiven the child molestor, who might be in a state of grace, while he didn’t forgive this other priest who appears to be a good man to everybody for some unknown to men/apparently minor sin.
Finally, concerning the popes, acting as popes, and not as priests, most of their decisions aren’t absolutely authoritative. So, even if they are erring in their papal attributions, it’s not a major issue. When their decision (or the decisions of a concile, for that matter) has an authoritative value, they’re supposed to be inspired by God/the Holy Ghost hence they cannot err, regardless of their sinfulness/complete stupidity/evilness/whatever (let alone their sinfulness as perceived by men).