Talk:Pope Leo X

message: This is apparently a work in progress, not a mature article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.65.41 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I think there should be some consideration to the language used here. There was never any "selling" of an indulgence, but rather, the indulgence was tied to almsgiving. Taking the story of St. Peter's Basilica, a citizen would donate the money for the building of the church, much like the way "offering" money is used in churches today. This is where the indulgence comes in, as I understand it. The pope did not scribble "no hell for you" on a piece of paper and collect money from its citizens. That would be selling and was never taught by the Catholic church, not to mention that indulgences have nothing to do with hell. I would be happy to create a section on this within the biography for clarification and leave the word "sale" at the beginning. Thoughts?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.51.7 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sale" of Indulgences 

message: I have no idea what this statement means: "[He] was the only pope who has bestowed his own name upon his age." Kent Wang 07:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it refers to Medici, but that is pretty cryptic. Dominick 15:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic cleanup 

message: I added the link to the actual letter from his father replacing the wiki entry to letter since that isn't in support of the article. I know there are other places where the choice of wikification is odd, like indulgences instead of a link to the 95. I am not a good cadidate for Martin Luther NPOV articles, since my personal PoV thinks little of Luther. Dominick 15:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source material work 

message: I cant find a source for the boys jumping out of pudding, or the massive hemmeroid story. I think it is a legend, probably an ancient creation. If someone wants to look too, perhaps we can find SOME factual basis. Dominick 15:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy in pudding sources 

message: Surely this comment belongs on the Cardinals page rather than here - creates an overcomplex sentence. Jackiespeel 16:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young cardinals 

message: Okay, I'm confused. The "Personal relationships" section begins with the statement that "Several historians have suggested the likelihood that Leo may have been homosexual" (emphasis mine). This implies that there is no certain knowledge to this effect. But then, in the next paragraph, it is asserted as an established fact that "Leo fell in love with Marc'Antonio [Flaminio]". This seems to me contradictory. Or am I missing something? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge or Speculation? 

message: I read that Pope Leo once said in 1514, "I will not see the end of the world, nor will you my brethren, for its time is long in the future, 500 years hence." Can anyone verify this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.17.250 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediction of end times? 

message: The article downplays the fact that Exsurge Domine permits the burning of heretics. If there is no objection, I intend to be bold and add something about this  Eiler7 (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can bring references for this, it would be even better. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It means serving a POV if you quote just one condemnation (No. 33 [?]) out of Exsurge Domine, make sure that it is the very one out of over forty that will offend modern ears, neglect the fact that the Pope did not condemn it as "heretical" (or "erroneous") but summarily as "heretical or erroneous or scandalous or offending pius ears or ... or ... or ..." (i. e. without exactly giving a qualification), neglect that the condemned proposition (while, per se, it must be said, not erroneous) has a basis in Lutheranism which is flawed, neglect that Luther after all never meant to stop oppression of dissenting thought, on the contrary greatly encouraged it against the Catholic Church, neglect that the other 41 (?) propositions are very justly condemned, and so on and so on.--93.133.222.245 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of burning 

message: Unnatural vice is not necessarily homosexuality, but could also mean masturbation. --93.133.222.245 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Masturbation - are you serious? You think someone went to the trouble of recording in their memoirs or whatever that the Pope masturbated? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only saying that masturbation, homosexual, and bestial acts were and are altogether grouped under the title "unnatural vice" in moral theology.--93.133.250.204 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they - are you sure? In which case it must show how "moral theology" is bonkers! I mean most people masturbate so it can hardly be 'unnatural' can it! Hilarious. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is considered unnatural in Catholic moral theology in that it is a sexual act that cannot lead to procreation.Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think you'll agree that in the context of this article this discussion on whether masturbation is "unnatural vice" according to moral theology is rather irrelevant (as indeed it is in the real world too). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I might disagree to that, my (IP 93.133.) actual point was that when a source obviously actually using that terminology accuses the Pope of "unnatural vice" but does not give further specification, can we imply then that the source means "homosexuality"? I'm inclined to doubt.--2001:A60:1577:A101:90F1:F355:C066:4B95 (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we don't interpret the original sources. We look to secondary sources to support our edits. They concur that the issue is homosexuality, and not masturbation. Have you a source that suggests Leo X enjoyed masturbating and that was the concern of contemporaries? Happy to consider it if you have. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And who says that when apparently the contemporary sources have "unnatural vice", the "secondary sources" are not just as influenced by a modern "of course it can't just be masturbation and don't the pious of today usually mean homosexuality when using such expressions" than we might be?--2001:A61:2089:D01:CB0:94B1:3164:32CC (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of "unnatural vice" Giovio refers to his disapproval of the pope's familiar banter with his chamberlains and the advantage he was said to take of them. Nothing in that to suggest that the concern was about Leo masturbating. So what's your point?Contaldo80 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and the interpretation of "unnatural vice"

message: How can someone elected cardinal in 1489 (Cardinal section) be the "last non-priest to be elected Pope" in 1513 (Pope section)? Travelpleb (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to 1917, there was no obligation for cardinals to receive priestly ordination. Cardinal Medici was only deacon when elected to the Papacy CarlosPn (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. Should the text clarify the non-preistliness of the cardinal? As it stands now it appears confusing.Travelpleb (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: Among the sources of the Homosexuality section there are:
*A former priest who was famous for his hatred against the Church.
*Anonymous pasquinades.
*Mr Cesare Falconi. Search him on google, you'll se he is invisible. There's no trace of him.
This shows that the author of this section does not understand the basics of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. But then I found out something worse. The book Who's who in Gay and Lesbian history (Aldrich, Wotherspoon) is available online and you can see that the book quotes a lot from the fake Mr. Falconi. The Guicciardini quote also comes from Aldrich, but he does not provide any citation to Guicciardini's work - it could be all made up. If Aldrich's book does not cite sources, how can it be trusted?
In fact, it's wrong to call it "Aldrich's" or "Wotherspoon's" book, since it is a compilation of individual contributions. Leo X's entry was written by Giovanni Dall'Orto, who according to the Spanish Wikipedia, is a LGBT TouTube vlogger. Please re-read WP:SOURCES.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (WP:EXCEPTIONAL). So I'm simply deleting everything until at least two non-partisan sources back this theory. --El Huinca (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of "Cesare" Falconi there was an error in name - it should be Carlo Falconi CarlosPn (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as correctly given in the reference. The book is not not at all hard to track down. Sparafucil (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims above are rather hysterical. The homosexuality of Leo X is relatively well documented (considering the subject and the period). Sources cited include bishops and contemporary historians. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then instead of an ex-priest turned journalist(ie. Carlo Falconi), we should rely on academic historians. Why is Pierre Bayle being used? I have found nothing of his education which would lead me to believe he's an historian. Francesco Gucciardini, is closer to a primary source than a secondary source and should probably not be used. Paul Strathern appears to have taught philosophy and mathematics and is not a historian. Joseph McCabe, ex-priest, no formal training or academic standing as an historian. Another primary source, Paolo Giovio. It appears that entire section needs to be re-written using reliable sources! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ? Just because Leo X was a pope, mentioning his homosexuality would be an "exceptional claim" ??? I don't think so. Frimoussou (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Homosexuality 

message: Next thursday will be a year since I last edited this article. In this timespan the Internet grew a lot: now two of the cited textes are online and can be reviewd. Which I did, and I found that the quotations are a complete lie. When somebody is a liar, one can not trust him anymore. Let's have a look at Gucciardini's Storia D'Italia on the election of Leo X:
Nel conclave fu la prima cura moderare con capitoli molto stretti l'autorità del futuro pontefice, esercitata, come dicevano, dal morto troppo impotentemente: benché non molto poi (come degli uomini alcuni non hanno ardire di opporsi al principe, altri appetiscono di farselo benevolo) gli annullorno da loro medesimi quasi tutti. Elessono il settimo dí, non discrepando alcuno, in pontefice Giovanni cardinale de' Medici, il quale assunse il nome di Leone decimo, di età d'anni trentasette; cosa, secondo la consuetudine passata, maravigliosa, e della quale fu principale cagione la industria de' cardinali giovani, convenutisi molto prima tacitamente insieme di creare il primo pontefice del numero loro. Sentí di questa elezione quasi tutta la cristianità grandissimo piacere, persuadendosi universalmente gli uomini che avesse a essere rarissimo pontefice, per la chiara memoria del valore paterno e per la fama, che risonava per tutto, della sua liberalità e benignità; stimato casto e di integerrimi costumi; e sperandosi che a esempio del padre avesse a essere amatore de' letterati e di tutti gl'ingegni illustri: la quale espettazione accresceva l'essere stata fatta l'elezione candidamente, senza simonia o sospetto di macula alcuna. E pareva già che Iddio cominciasse ad approvare questo pontificato, perché il quarto dí dalla elezione vennono in sua potestà i cardinali privati di Santa Croce e di San Severino. I quali, intesa la morte di Giulio, andavano per mare a Roma, accompagnati da... Solier imbasciadori del re di Francia; ma intesa nel porto di Livorno, ove erano sorti, essere eletto il cardinale de' Medici in nuovo pontefice, confidatisi nella sua benignità, e specialmente Sanseverino nella amicizia stretta che aveva avuto seco e col fratello, impetrato salvocondotto, dal capitano di Livorno, il quale non si stendeva oltre a' limiti della sua giurisdizione, discesono in terra, e dipoi, non ricercata altra sicurezza, spontaneamente andorno a Pisa: nella quale città raccolti onoratamente, e dipoi condotti a Firenze, erano onestamente custoditi, di maniera che non aveano facoltà di partirsi: cosí desiderando il pontefice. Il quale, mandato il vescovo d'Orvieto, gli confortò con parole molto benigne che, per sicurtà loro e per pace della Chiesa, soprasedessino in Firenze insino a tanto si determinasse in che modo avessino a andare a Roma; e che, essendo stati privati giuridicamente e confermata la privazione nel concilio lateranense, non andassino piú in abito di cardinali, perché facendo segni d'umiliarsi, faciliterebbono a lui il ridurre, secondo che aveva in animo di fare, in porto le cose loro.
So the alleged quote is a lie, invented almost out of nowhere. Only the first part appears in the original: "stimato casto e di integerrimi costumi". Which in a literal translation would be: "considered [to be] chaste and of integrity-filled customs". The rest of the alleged quote is invented.
But now let's take look to another false qutoation: Paulus Jovius and his Vita Leonis Decimi:
Non caruit etiam infamia, quod parum honeste nonnullos e cubiculariis (erant enim e tota Italia nobilissimi) adamare, et cum his tenerius atque libere iocari videretur. Sed quis vel optimus atque sanctissimus princeps in hac maledicentissima aula lividorum aculeos vitavit?
This is better than the previous one: at least you have not invented text out of the blue. Instead, you have changed the meaning of a word and conveniently left out the following question. Let us remember highschool Latin: the construct quod + infinitive is a subordinate sentence for referred speech (a quotation) in which the referrer does not hold the point of view of the referred. 
Also the word infamia in Latin means false accusation. The translation "accusation of infamy" is a flat lie, because the word accusatio is missing and the modern concept of infamy doesn't have a direct correlation in Latin (you need a Latin equivalent like "unhonourable act"). The related verb infero has several meanings including: go forth, attack, and rush into. The correct way to translate the first sentence is "non (not) caruit (escaped-he) etiam (also) infamia (the flase accusation:) that he would have loved not few of the servants..."
The real key to understand it is the question that follows the quoted sentence: "But who, even an excellent and holy prince, can escape (vitavit) in this (in hac) most-maledicting court (maledicentissima aula) the stings (aculeos) of the envious (lividorum)?"
Since lies are bad, I proceed to correct the article.
El Huinca (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please... I'm pasting the actual text, the original, in medieval Italian. You can read it in the Internet Archive and in Google Books. What you are saying is a copy of an internet book written who knows by whom in which the discussion is about the benevolence of Leo X, not about his sexuality. Also, Guicciardini never wrote a "History of Clement VII". He wrote Histories of Florence in two volumes and a History of Italy. No more "histories" written by him. He did write about Clement VII but not a History El Huinca (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Next thursday will be a year since I last edited this article. In this timespan the Internet grew a lot". Lol. Grew a lot did it. This is all original research. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Benevolence?? The note in question is to the following fragment: As to the purity of the morals of Leo X., it can only be said that as a Cardinal his reputation in this respect was absolutely spotless ; there is no proof that as Pope * he was in any way different. CarlosPn (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Here is the fragment of Guicciardini CarlosPn (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact he was a homosexual is proven. It's not because you don't like it that it's not a fact. You are lying.90.3.24.82 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies 

message: User:Frimoussou, why do you accuse me of "original work"? Please provide a detailed explanation that any administrator could accept. El Huinca (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You insert original research and original translation without any reference in the article. It is not allowed. It's funny how people are concerned about the non-homosexuality of this pope... It seems it's a real crusade for some users.Frimoussou (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the translation is unaccetable i'll post only the original quotation :) Thanks! El Huinca (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your reference is a book written in 1836 so it is absolutely not the "original quotation" !!! In 1836, texts referring to homosexuality were automatically censured especially if it a about a pope. It is absolutely original research with the POV that Leo X could not have homosexual because he was a pope. Thanks. Frimoussou (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You keep inventing fake reasons to delete my edit. Very well, I'll write to the Administrator Noticeboard so that somebody with more experience can deal with this problem :) El Huinca (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's a rather good idea. As all other users have admitted the previous translations are correct. It seems it's your edits that are fakes.Frimoussou (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original work 

message: The purpose of a talkpage is to facilitate consensus on disputed topics appertaining to the relative article.  Editors are not obliged to abandon their personal convictions in talk when striving for consensus.  The article can reflect personal opinions held by editors if they can adduce reliable sources to the same effect ; even then, questions of proper weight, balance and proportion (see WP:BALASPS, WP:UNDUE and the bar on WP:FRINGE) limit scope for editors to parade their preoccupations under cover of edits.  Nor is "biased" sufficient to exclude a source (see WP:BIASED).
Note also, as stated in the relevant  policy statement:- Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject . . We should keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Disagreement over the title, content, and even existence of the "Sexuality" sub-section is manifest not only from the vigorous interventions here (see topics 5,6,9, and 12-18 above), but in its vexed edit history from its creation in March 2008 by Contaldo80 (blanked on grounds of plagiarism two months later, and restored in a new form by Contaldo80 days after).  
The sub-section originally began "Various indications point to Leo's homosexuality" and ended " . . the question of Leo's homosexuality may in future be discussed on the basis of firmer evidence."  To my mind, that remains a truer reflection of the sources than the current version, although the dispassionate observer might contest the viability of so flaccid a piece.  It might merit space in a gay Who's Who scrabbling for entries; but in an encyclopedia?  Hence the strenuous but (as I believe) vain efforts over the years to firm up this speculative and tentative material which still discloses its true nature in (a) the editorial use of words such as "implying", "allegedly", "suggestions", and "suspicions" and (b) the vague and allusive nature of what is adduced from the sources.
In an attempt to move the discussion to a positive and stable outcome I created on my userpage  one sandbox to explore the issues, and a another for exploring what a credible draft of the sub-section might look like. All editors are welcome to join in. Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @sandbox: Strathern in his history of the Medici family actually does not indicate that Leo was homosexual. He says only that there were laviscious parties at his court, with young boys in puddings, but Leo himself was not engaged in sexual activity. CarlosPn (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder, CarlosPn.  You wrote before that you had the Polish translation of Strathern's Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance.  I have now obtained a copy of the original English text, and of those extravagant parties (he does not even call them "lascivious") he wrote : "Curiously [they] do not seem to have involved sexual misdemeanours; Leo X enjoyed watching the show, rather than taking part in it.  He would clap his podgy hands in delight [etc.]"  Nothing on page 277 or anywhere in the book so much as hints at any sexual behaviour of any kind by Leo X.  The opening sentence of the "sexuality" section is an outrageous invention.  I am now investigating the edit history in my  sandbox to see how such a farago came to impose itself on the reading public. It seems clear that the major responsibility for the material lies with  Contaldo80 who rather ostentatiously excused himself from participating in the review of the evidence.  Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ostentatiously excused"? You are funny. In what way have I been "ostentatious"? Or perhaps you're looking for "flamboyant" - isn't that always the word they euphemistically use for someone that's gay? I have not been involved in your sandbox because I simply do not trust your motives. I do not think you're editing in good faith. You have shown nothing to suggest that you have an open-mind on the sexuality of Leo - or that you have edited any articles to improve the coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia. Rather you are coming at the issue simply as a Catholic editor (as your editorial history supports). In fact the edits that you're put in the supporting footnote are extraordinary - "Dall'Orto, a self-described militant gay homosexual". What!? An irrelevant point about Falcone and McCabe having wanted to be priests - are you implying that they distort because they're bitter at not remaining in the Catholic church? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) I haven't helped improve coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia: that supports your charge of bad faith? (careful !! WP:GF)  And I "have shown nothing to suggest I have an open mind on the sexuality of Leo"? Contrary to your comment of 23 Jan. 2015 (9:57), I did not "talk about the absurdity of a pope being homosexual", but I did object to the anachronistic use of the term.  The dearth of information keeps my mind open on Leo's sexual proclivities.  (2) It's not irrelevant to report Dall'Orto's self-description as militante gay (dal 1976). The source most likely to be favourable to the proposition you contend for is frank about the tepid quality of the evidence in support. (3) Not for the first time, you misread me: it's not that Falconi and McCabe wanted to be priests; they were priests, but left ministry. Since they are the only historians outside the consensus, it seems pertinent to note that fact.  I ascribe no motives, but read the preface to McCabe's book for his polemical attitude to the Church and the Papacy in particular. Ridiculus mus (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search for consensus 

message: (A) Bayle, a French rationalist, has been cited in support of a complex proposition advanced by him in his long entry on Leo X in his Critical and Historical Dictionary (new edn., Paris, 1820, vol.9, pp.143-162) :- (1) somebody considered (On prétend . . ) (2) that Giovanni de'Medici was elected pope (3) because of a wound (les blessures) (4) which he acquired through sexual activity (dans les combats vénériens).  A wiki editor added the false statement (5) that the fistula developed during the conclave.  But since Bayle reports that it was the malady which retarded Giovanni's journey to Rome, Bayle cannot have believed (and did not write nor has anyone ever claimed) that it "developed at the time of the conclave which elected him".  Thus the passage in the wiki sub-section at this point traduces what Bayle wrote and is pure invention.  I have previously deleted it.  The wiki sub-section was also in error in truncating the quotation, omitting On prétend which I restored in a previous edit.
(B) Bayle's source for the nexus between (2) and (3) is Antoine Varillas (1624-1696), a French littérateur and  historian whom Bayle himself criticised for being contradictory and unreliable.  Roscoe (vol. 2, pp.237-239 including a quote from and discussion of Bayle) dismisses out of hand the idea that the abscess, as he calls it, "was attributable to any irregularities of [Giovanni's] past life".  The source was Varillas' Les Anecdotes de Florence ou L'Histoire Secrète de la Maison de Medicis, 1687, book VI, p.253 (Roscoe gives the false ref. p. 235) and p.257.  Varillas nowhere attributes the malady to sexual activity but says in terms that the conclave deadlock was broken when Cardinal de' Medici's abscess (abscès) opened with a foul stench leading his physicians to prognosticate a shortened life for him.  Proposition (4) is Bayle's own gratuitous embellishment from which he resiles in his long footnote (B).
(C) No reliable source claims that the fistula developed as a result of sexual activity.  The most recent writer (Strathern, p.266) says it was "caused by his long period in the saddle during his military campaigns".  Giovio in book III of his Vita explains that the malady (he calls it an abscess and says nothing about its origin) was the remote cause of Giovanni's election because it was so debilitating that physicians were exceptionally summoned to the conclave to treat him and word got around that he was so ill that he had not long to live. It was this idea that the pontificate would be short which, according to Giovio, broke the deadlock and cleared the way for Giovanni to be elected (evidently Varillas' source on this point).   This account of the conclave is repeated variously, but Strathern, for example (whose sole cited source for Leo X is Roscoe), makes no reference to it, and Vaughan (The Medici Popes, 1908, p.108) gives no credit to the story that the election had anything to do with an expectation that Giovanni de' Medici had not long to live.  He relegates the discussion of the "infirmity" to a footnote (on p.112).  The Encyclopaedia Britannica article (vol.16, 1911, pp.433-436) notes of the "incurable malady" only that it "darkened his days" (p.436, col.1) and does not connect it with the conclave.  Pellegrini has written two long encyclopedia entries on Leo X (Enciclopedia dei Papi, 2000, and Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 2005, vol. 64): in the former place he mentions the "fistola" only in connection with the Petrucci conspiracy (the plan to corrupt Leo's surgeon to introduce the poison while ostensibly treating the fistula); in both places (but without mentioning the fistula) he allows that Giovanni's bad health (la malferma salute, giving no details) might have indicated a short pontificate.
(D) Guicciardini (Book 13, cap. VII) reports the malady as a fistula under the buttocks, but in the context of a suspicion that Leo died from poisoning, and with no reference to the conclave.  If it needs saying, neither Giovio nor Guicciardini attributes the fistula to sexual activity, nor do they report that anyone else drew sexual implications from it.  Gregorovius (fistula, Book 8, Part 1, p.175) mentions it, but makes nothing of it.  Pastor (Eng. trans, vol VII, p.19) ditto.  
(E) Varillas, whom Bayle quotes at length in his footnote (B)) located the injury (les blessuers) on Giovanni's private parts (aux parties que la pudeur défend de nommer).  If it had been where Varrillas said it was, it might possibly suppose a venereal disease.  Bayle corrects Varillas on the location of the injury, quoting Giovio (au fondament, translating Giovio's innatum ab ima sede abscessum)
(F) Bayle then comments, that if Giovio was correct, the malady would not seem to have a disgraceful cause.  Whether Bayle's anatomy, physiology, pathology or aetiology is sound has nothing to do with the case. 
(G) In an English translation of this part of Bayle's footnote (a 4 volume set of excerpts published in London, 1826), we read (vol.2, pp.389-404, at pp.391.):- Not to conceal anything, I am obliged to acquaint my reader that Paulus Jovius does not place this ulcer in the place where Varillas does, but in the fundament, which would suppose a disgraceful cause: and with the same sincerity I add, that this pope ascended his throne with a great reputation of chastity, if we believe Guicciardini, and was reckoned very continent from his youth, if we credit Paul Jovius . . . and lastly I observe, in the sense in which I allege Varillas's words, and which Seckendorf gives them, is gathered only from consequences, and such as do not necessarily follow from them.
(H) This translation is incorrect in a material part, for what Bayle actually wrote was:- Pour ne rien dissimuler, je dois avertir mon lecteur, que Paul Jove ne met point l'abscès aux mêmes parties que Varillas : il le met au fondement [here he quotes the passage from Giovio I have already quoted], ce qui ne marquerait pas une origine honteuse [my emphasis: trans. "which would not suppose a disgraceful cause"].
(J) In conclusion:  (i) Bayle himself does not credit a sexual origin to what he (following Varillas) calls an abscess (abscès).  (ii) The sole source for proposition (4) is Bayle who palms the idea off on Varillas (who in fact makes no observation as to the cause of the malady).  (iii) The nexus between (2) and (3) is anyway disputed by historians and, for the most recent writers from and after 1911, it is an insignificant sideline not worth mentioning.
The Bayle sentence has no place in wikipedia, being (a) a misrepresentation of what Bayle wrote (b) concerning an aetiological inference drawn by him from (c) Varillas (d) based on a point of anatomy as to which Bayle himself corrected Varillas, and (e) on which no other writer has ever followed Bayle who (f) effectively resiled, in a footnote, from the off-hand and utterly prejudicial remark made in his main text. I have accordingly deleted the Bayle material. Any re-instatement must address the detailed argument I have presented here. Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FRINGE]] 

message: Following my shocking discovery about the Strathern citation, and in the light of the material discussed under the previous topic, not to mention my minute treatment of the issue in the sandox I created for intensive analysis of the sources (as to which only Frimoussou contributed), I have now revised my draft substitute for the existing sub-section "Sexuality" and it is available HERE for viewing and comment.  Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it needs to be said, the existing state of the sub-section, even after severe pruning of the more culpable elements, remains intolerable since it is grossly unbalanced.  The citation of McCabe is particularly indefensible, for not only is his work polemically anti-Catholic in both intent and form (see his Preface, passim), but his pretended discussion of the sources bearing on Leo's morals is marred by distortion of the treatments by Pastor and Vaughan whom McCabe (ironically) accuses of lack of professional objectivity, unjustly claiming the former was guilty of untruthfulness and the latter of lying.  Evenso, McCabe has to labour mightily (p.409) to make anything of what is found in either Giovio or Guicciardini:-. . .the belief that he began to indulge in unnatural vice after he became Pope was so seriously held in Rome that the two leading historians of his time record it and seem to share it. [emphasis added]  McCabe's translation of the second part of the Guicciadini sentence is so anodyne as to belie Pastor's view (vol.8, p.81) that Guicciardini "brings strong though general accusations".  What McCabe writes (quoting Guicciardini) is:- "Leo began during his pontifical career to be 'excessively devoted to pleasures which cannot be called decent'." And, after citing the chamberlains story, he concedes:- "[Giovio] goes on to say that it is proper to believe 'that this is gossip,' and that it is wicked to 'claim to have penetrated the secrets of the night'."  McCabe glosses this by commenting:- "In other words, he plainly tells his readers that the charge is true, but it is better not to say you believe it."  Not an interpretation that any other historian or commentator - from Bayle in the 17th c. to Dall'Orto in the 21st c. - has felt able to draw from Giovio's words. Ridiculus mus (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with the paragraph as it stands. It needs changing. I want a clear reference to the claim that Leo was homosexual. Not some vague and prudish suggestions about lacking chastity. I'd also ask Catholic editors to bear in mind the principle of neutrality when editing. Can I also remind people that a person can still be homosexual and yet not have homosexual sexual activity. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "clear claims" of homosexuality.  The only relevant claims are of "sodomy" which no reputable secondary source considers to be credible.  The evidence in the secondary sources has been fairly and fully dealt with. I revert all Contaldo80's amendments.  He has had abundant opportunity to contribute to consensus-building and insists on pushing his own agenda, a fact manifest from previous tendentious and erroneous edits of his spanning several years. If he wishes to pursue the debate he must do so on a talk-page and not via edit wars. Ridiculus mus (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The amendments I made were perfectly acceptable. There is no point having rafts of material under the section designed to tell us that everyone has dismissed the claims against Leo - without actually saying what those claims were, and why someone felt they needed to dismiss them. As the text stands it clarifies that a number of contemporary sources - Guicciardini, Giovio, Luther - suggested that either Leo performed sexual acts (sodomy as it would have been referred to then) or was sexually attracted to his male chamberlains (homosexuality as we refer to it today). The text then goes on to state that these claims cannot be proved conclusively either way. That seems perfectly reasonable. Nor is it acceptable to imply that the issue is insignificant. Martin Luther was using the sexual morality of the pope and cardinals to ask his fellow Germans to distance themselves from their obedience to Rome. I also think you need to back up your claim of "previous tendentious and erroneous edits of his spanning several years" otherwise I'm going to make a referral against what I regard as personal abuse. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See section 23 below. Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did't see, but it has been well whitewashed. Frimoussou (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual immorality 

message: The section "Legacy" contains material that properly belongs under this head: I am thinking of the Pope's love of revelry and the exotic (e.g. Hanno), and his prodigality (see "Spendthrift").  What is missing is any reference to his love of buffoonery and his inordinate devotion to the chase.  Treatment of these will help to balance out the section on character. Ridiculus mus (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character 

message: I respond here to points made by  Contaldfo80 under section 21 above ("Sexual immorality").  I am pleased to see that there has been a substantial advance towards consensus.  The more objectionable of Contaldo's previous edits have not been restored and he approves part at least of my edits as "reasonable".  That's an important advance.  However, the recent edits by Contaldo are not acceptable for the reasons I give here.  I quote his pretended justifications (where they exist) and give my responses seriatim:-
(1) I'm not happy with the paragraph as it stands. It needs changing. I want a clear reference to the claim that Leo was homosexual. Not some vague and prudish suggestions about lacking chastity.
:1.	Item: The issue is not whether the text accords with the personal wants of editors, but whether it accurately reflects reliable sources.  As to that, questions of proportion apply, as well as considerations as to the prominence to be given (or not) to innuendo and speculation in a biography.
:2.	Item: It is incorrectly objected that "unchaste" and "chastity" are vague and prudish.  Discreditable sources (including Luther at a peak of virulence) claim sodomy; others indulge in (Guicciardini) or report (Giovio) insinuations of vague sexual misbehaviour.  Unlike "homosexual" (and for the very reasons Contaldo gives) "unchastity" covers the field. "Homosexual" and "homosexuality" are anachronistic and are found in no source except Dall'Orto who makes it clear that the evidence (which he concedes is not firm) consists merely of indications pointing to it.  Combining passages from authors and deducing that they intend "homosexual" is blatant WP:SYNTH.
(2) There is no point having rafts of material under the section designed to tell us that everyone has dismissed the claims against Leo - without actually saying what those claims were, and why someone felt they needed to dismiss them. As the text stands it clarifies that a number of contemporary sources - Guicciardini, Giovio, Luther - suggested that either Leo performed sexual acts (sodomy as it would have been referred to then) or was sexually attracted to his male chamberlains (homosexuality as we refer to it today). . . Nor is it acceptable to imply that the issue is insignificant.
:1.	Item: The text does not quite assert that "everyone has dismissed the claims against Leo".  A plurality of historians thought the claims were too insignificant to mention or rebut in detail.  If we are to present what the claims "actually are" we must not interpret them.
:2.	Item: Neither Giovio nor Guicciardini (of the primary sources) identify the claims with any precision and it is WP:SYNTH to treat them as if they do (see above). What Contaldo calls "clarifying" is unwarranted editorialising.
:3. Item: Zimmermann's quote of Giovio (and it is incorrect since Giovio says nothing about the personal attractions of the chamberlains) is dealt with in the footnote and by no means deserves to be privileged in the main text which is very deliberately an overview. The same goes for the previous sentence which again resuscitates material deservedly consigned to a footnote - it is an unsuccessful attempt (deriving from McCabe) to bind Giovio and Guicciardini together as one.  It is also ungrammatical.
:4. Item: The new Luther quote can possibly be footnoted to the quote under "general assessment", but it certainly doesn't deserve to appear above the line: (a) the source is biased, polemical, and self-contradictory, (b) contrary to the implication in the edit, it does not date from Luther's only visit to Rome (which occurred under Julius II), and (c) it appears in an unknown context in a book (not about Leo) which is not an academic history (i) written by a man who also writes fiction and (ii) conveniently light on references.  Luther's quote is not cited by any other cited secondary source.  So much for significance.
(3) I also think you need to back up your claim of "previous tendentious and erroneous edits of his spanning several years" otherwise I'm going to make a referral against what I regard as personal abuse. Thanks.
I would prefer to spare Contaldo's blushes and concentrate on improving the article since the aim must be to build consensus.  But Contaldo rejected that approach and now (having accused me of editing in bad faith) threatens to report me unless I justify my claim that he made edits which were tendentious (intended to advance a cause) and erroneous (incorrect in point of fact).  For now I content myself with advising Contaldo to revisit edits he made on 14 April and 11 May 2008, 13 May 2009,  2 and 26 December 2010, and 4 December 2013.  Thanks. Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't spare my blushes Ridiculus mus - if you want to accuse me of advancing a cause and being deliberately erroneous then please go ahead. And while we do that we can take a look at your own highly partisan edits - that dell'Orto is a "militant homosexual", the frankly irrelevant fact that McCabe and Falcone tried and failed to train as priests, that McCabe if "anti-Catholic" etc. In fact I would be grateful if you could please put on record whether you are either a Roman Catholic priest (or in a religious order) or employed by the Catholic church so we can be clear that your edits are in good faith and objective? What you dismiss as innuendo and speculation, others might happily regard as improving the knowledge and understanding of LGBT history - an area which is sensitive and highly nuanced (and I'd appreciate it if you showed some awareness of that). Again, I would like you to put on record that you are open to the idea that Leo may have been homosexual. Giovio and Gucciardini are clearly covering the issue of Leo's homosexual impulses (Giovio: "And scandal was not absent, because he was seen to be quite improperly devoted to some of his personal attendants, who were from the noblest families of all Italy, and to joke with them freely and rather amorously" please note the word amorously).  If you think there is a credible alternative perspective then please state what you believe it is. Luther's consideration of Leo's homosexuality seems to have been a further argument in the arsenal of the protestants as to why the primacy of Rome should be rejected (and echoed in Bayle, who you took great pains to edit out). The significance is not that it proves Leo was homosexual; but that Luther and others believed him to be. There is nothing in the current article text which is incorrect. There is simply a decision to be made about the ordering of the facts and how they are to be covered. Let's try and focus on that. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Contaldo repeats points I have already answered and his argumentation is becoming tedious.  For my assessment of his edits of 7 April (and the utter worthlessness of the Luther material) see HERE. As for my edit history, it speaks for itself and I do not have to defend my choices as to what I edit. Nor is it acceptable to edit Leo X in order to "[improve] the knowledge and understanding of LGBT history".  But I see Contaldo concedes that Giovio and Guicciardini adumbrate Leo's "impulses".  In that, he has come a long way from claiming (as he did) that "Several modern historians have concluded that Leo was homosexual" - a claim which was never true and was bolstered by him by a citation (Strathern) which Contaldo can never have checked because it is plainly erroneous. Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I take it then that by avoiding the reasonable question above you are in fact a Roman Catholic cleric or religious? In which case can we please have reassurances that you are able to edit with neutrality and objectivity in this ongoing "argumentation". Your edit history does indeed speak for itself - including your edit that Dell'Orto is a "militant homosexual". I'm particular concerned that you haven't been able to concede the idea in principle that Leo could have been homosexual - and that there is nothing to preclude that as one possibility (subject, of course, to the sources). On the point above, Giovio says Leo flirted with his male chamberlains amorously. I don't regard that as "adumbrative" - I think it's pretty clear. Incidentally 'd rather we deal with the issues on the article talk page rather than your sandbox. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did't see, but it has been well whitewashed in the sense of the catholic lobby. Frimoussou (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm not sure I can continue editing this article in good faith with another editor who as a Roman Catholic priest seems hell-bent (I you pardon the pun) on a strict pro-Vatican line. It's extremely tiresome and not in the spirit of wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I have grave doubts as to the validity of the alleged Luther quote.  Taking just the words within quotation marks, I have made searches in Out of the Storm in google/books and there is a nil return for "shamelessly" and "sodomy"; searches for "otherwise", "spread", "openly" and "cardinals" reveal no such sentence as is alleged.  In addition, "practice" occurs only as a noun and does not exist as a verb (spelt "practise" in the English fashion).  Evidently something occurs in the book since an entry in the index under "Leo" has a reference to "keeping boys for pleasure" - although no page reference is given.  In the circumstances (having regard to the erroneous claim made by Contaldo for Strathern and the erroneous citation he gave in support) I think that what is required is a verifiable reference to Luther's works otherwise we have here a breach of WP:VERIFY. Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research on a different page of google/books brings up p.282 (the page cited by Contaldo) and it does contain the passage quoted, with a footnote (9) which I cannot access.  I think it important to know the date when Luther made the reported remark. Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh gosh I was telling the truth, well who would have known. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Contaldo80 

message: I'm willing to try and take on board comments from other editors and prepared to show flexibility to make the section on sexuality as snappy as possible and as close to the sources as we can get. I'm suggesting therefore the following structure:
- Two contemporaries (Giovio and Gucciardini) reported that they had heard it said that Leo (while pope) had been unchaste – specifically by having sex with other men.  Gucciardini notes the fact that some thought Leo showed too much attention to some of his chamberlains. Both dismiss the accusations as unsubstantiated rumours.
- However, a number of pasquinades did appear after Leo died mocking him for committing sodomy, and naming potential lovers.
- A number of modern historians have considered the evidence to determine whether any clear conclusions on Leo’s homosexuality may be drawn. They generally agree that there is not enough to support a claim that Leo had sex with other men while pope. 
- Falconi, Leo’s most recent biographer, also examines the case of Marc-Antonio Flaminio, a youth with a promising curial career ahead of him, but whose father suddenly recalled him from Rome. Falconi believes that Flaminio’s father may have suspected Leo’s motives for taking such a keen interest.
- A number of protestant writers (including Luther and Bayle) made reference to Leo’s perceived sodomy in their works. However, there is insufficient substance to this and they must be dismissed as polemic.     
I would welcome thoughts. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: Back in my school sixth form days (1983-1985) I seem to recall coming across a book that was a joint biography of Luther and Pope Leo X. If anyone knows the details f this book it could go in the "Further Reading" section  - the book did point out that a lot more books have been written on Martin Luther than on Leo X. Vorbee (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: Significant text of this article is quoted directly from the [ 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]. For example, compare
:Leo, meanwhile, felt the need of staying the advance of the warlike sultan, Selim I., who was threatening western Europe, and made elaborate plans for a crusade. A truce was to be proclaimed throughout Christendom; the pope was to be the arbiter of disputes; the emperor and the king of France were to lead the army; England, Spain and Portugal were to furnish the fleet; and the combined forces were to be directed against Constantinople. Papal diplomacy in the interests of peace failed, however; Cardinal Wolsey made England, not the pope, the arbiter between France and the Empire; and much of the money collected for the crusade from tithes and indulgences was spent in other ways. (Britannica)
:Leo, meanwhile, felt the need of staying the advance of the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, who was threatening western Europe, and made elaborate plans for a crusade. A truce was to be proclaimed throughout Christendom; the pope was to be the arbiter of disputes; the emperor and the king of France were to lead the army; England, Spain and Portugal were to furnish the fleet; and the combined forces were to be directed against Constantinople. Papal diplomacy in the interests of peace failed, however; Cardinal Wolsey made England, not the pope, the arbiter between France and the Empire; and much of the money collected for the crusade from tithes and indulgences was spent in other ways. Pope_Leo_X#Plans_for_a_Crusade
The rest of the text should be checked, as huge portions cite the Encyclopedia without quotation marks. Clean Copytalk 23:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All of it is has inline citations and the reference they point to said: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Leo (popes) § Leo X" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 16 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press." (altohough I've replaced it with a slightly less ambigious "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain ....". Quotation marks are not required when PD sources are incorporated: WP:FREECOPYING. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank plagiarism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cardinal at 13 years of age  

message: * :Category:LGBT Roman Catholic popes
Pope Leo X was a LGBT Roman Catholic pope. That should be sorted in category.
* Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle
--188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorted in LGBT cats 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion