I'm reading "Ten Popes Who Shook the World" and just finished the chapter on Piux IV (Pio Nono).

I'm confused as to the hostile view that seems to be directed towards this pope. Duffy's chapter starts out detailing the French Revolution: how one pope (Pius VI) was kidnapped and died in prison. How churches were burnt to the ground, how nuns and priests were killed. How this was the dawning of modern democracy.

The chapter also begins by roughly stating that Pio Nono was a well-welcomed pope. Opposed to Gregory XVI, he was less against modernity and the coming changes.
It goes on to mention how revolutionaries and idealists in Italy wanted a united Italy with Austrian occupation ended. How the revolutionaries became upset with the pope's unwillingness to act in accord with their desires.

It mentions how the Papal States were slowly taken away from the Church in Rome. That shortly after losing the Papal States the pope had the "Syllabus of Errors" drafted.
The chapter ends commenting on how unmodern, unpractical, and unclever Pio Nono was.


I'm just having a hard time putting the pieces together.
If I look at that context: French Revolution less than 60 years prior to the papacy of Pio Nono; churches being burned and territory taken away - priests and nuns being killed (wasn't there also something called 'Public Marriages'? - this book doesn't mention them, but I recall reading about those). And then again during Pio Nono's papacy - the Papal States being taken away.... all from the same trend of modernity.

Looking at it in that context I'd have a hard time blaming Pio Nono for his view, for issuing the "Syllabus of Errors".

Whoops..
I meant "Republican Marriages".

I think you mean Pius IX (Pio Nono)

I would need to see what Duffy says about the Syllabus to make any judgment. The syllabus was a collection of doctrinal teachings, not anything new. It is basically a bunch of excerpts from previous documents condemning modern errors. Now it did cause a stir, and maybe Duffy is looking at it as bad politics?

Eamon Duffy is not a big fan of Pius IX because of the centralization of the Church that took place during his reign....

Sorry if you were expecting something more exciting, that is pretty much the entire explanation.

Thanks for correcting that... yes, I meant Pius IX.

Also, I should clarify - I didn't necessarily mean Duffy's view on Pio Nono.
Duffy seems to just be restating the view that many had on Pio Nono. I was curious as to how he went from a beloved Pope to a despised (maybe too harsh of a term).

Find a copy of Cross Upon Cross (it's OOP but available cheap and probably by inter-library load if you want). It will give you a much more sympathetic look at his life, and perhaps more insight as to why some people don't like him.

Basically the same thing that everyone else says, that liberals howled at it with derision, but that most of the negative reaction was misguided, and he mentions Félix Dupanloup and his famous pamphlet explaining the meaning of the Syllabus by tracing every statement to its original source and showing that the condemnations refer to the Italian unification and the rise of anticlerical governments in Europe.....but even if the condemnations were not intended in an absolute sense they were distorted and in the long run the controversy damaged Pope Pius' reputation...which is a shame because the Syllabus was not even an official document in the first place but was appended to Quanta Cura by an anonymous aide without the Pope's knowledge or formal approval...so the controversy was really unnecessary.

Thank you very much for that information, Doom.
Very interesting.

Thanks for the suggestion.
I'll definitely be picking that up.

It's quite true that those French revolutionaries tried to destroy the papacy by removing the pope to France where he died. Fortunately, the papacy survived, thanks to God.

Here is the text of Syllabus Errorum isued by Pio Nono (Italian for Pius the Ninth):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

Who is everyone else? For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia has a completely different explanation of its history and significance as the one you offer.