Replies

On November 6 a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter’s; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself.

The background: John XII was a Frenchman, a descendant of Charlemagne no less, and despised by the Italian and German episcopates because of his political sympathy for the King of France. Who organized this "synod" of Germans and Italians? Why the German emperor, Otto I - John XII's sworn enemy. Why was it a "synod of fifty" when there were several hundred Italian bishops? Because most of the Italian bishops, whether they were pro-French or not, refused to have anything to do with the Emperor's show trial/kangaroo court.

No, his mother isn’t mentioned but the incest charge is just one of many. And by a synod not anti-Catholic bigots.

So it isn't about facts, but about the severity of the charges?

This "synod" was no different than the "investigative committee" put together by the Alaskan state Democratic caucus to "investigate" Sarah Palin.

It was pure politics designed to force John XII from the papal seat so he could be replaced with one of the Emperor's cronies.

As they say, two out of three IS bad, but I’ll give you John 23

No, I was right about all three. There is zero evidence that John XII committed maternal incest. There was no Pope John XXIII in the 14th century. And Gregory VII did not write what he was alleged to have written.

You’re bending over backwards when you try to put words in someones mouth, “So it isn’t about facts, but about the severity of the charges?” I gave you the facts.

“It was pure politics designed to force John XII from the papal seat so he could be replaced with one of the Emperor’s cronies.”

If this be true, then you may be getting closer to the truth, that if the charges were untrue the bishops were just as corrupt as the accused. In other words, just a bunch of crooked politicians fighting over the spoils?

“There was no Pope John XXIII in the 14th century.”
Actually there was a previous John XXIII but wasn’t he considered an anti-pope?

So again, where are the lies in anything I’ve presented here?