Innocent Xi

Innocent Xi

(cardinal Benedetto Odescalchi), born at Como in 1611, succeeded Clement X in 1676. It is said by some that he was a soldier in his younger days, though this has been denied by others (Count Torre Rezzonico, De Suppositis Militaribus Stipendiis Benedetto Odescalchi). He was a man of great firmness and courage, austere in his morals, and inflexible in his resolutions, and withal one of the most distinguished popes of the 17th century. He inaugurated many reforms, reduced very materially the pomp and luxury of the papal court, and suppressed various abuses. His administration was entirely free from the weakness of nepotism which had so greatly sullied the fame of many of the pontiffs who had preceded him. His own nephew he obliged to live at Rome, under his pontificate, in a private character; and in this respect, certainly, he has had few equals in the pontifical chair. Indeed, his austerity was so great that it made him many enemies, and oftentimes estranged even some who would gladly have offered him their friendship.

His greatest enemies, no doubt, were the Jesuitical order, which he was determined to crush out. The principal event of his pontificate, however, was his quarrel with the imperious Louis XIV of France, particularly provoked by the question of the immunities enjoyed by the foreign ambassadors at Rome, an event which exhibits more clearly than any other act of his both his own character and that of the times, and deserves a few words of explanation. By an old usage or prescription, the foreign ambassadors at Rome had the right of asylum, not only in their vast palaces, but also in a certain district or boundary around them, including sometimes a whole street or square, which the officers of justice or police could not enter, and where, consequently, malefactors and dissolute persons found a ready shelter. These "quartieri," or free districts, were likewise places for the sale of contraband articles and for defrauding the revenue.

The abuse had become contagious: several of the Roman princes and cardinals claimed and enforced the same rights and immunities, so that only a small part of the city was left under the sway of the magistrates. The classical advocates for this absurd custom quoted the example of Romulus, who made his new town a refuge for all the lawless persons of the neighborhood. Innocent determined to put a stop to the abuse, and to be master in his own capital; he, however, proceeded at first calmly and with sufficient caution. He would not disturb the present possessors of those immunities, but he declared and made it officially known that in future he would not give audience to any new ambassador who did not renounce for himself and his successors these abusive claims.

All the great powers of Europe took umbrage at this very reasonable determination; but the question was not brought to a crisis until the death of the marechal d'Estrees, the French ambassador at Rome. Just before Louis XIV had appointed the new ambassador, the pope repeated in a bull, dated May 1687, his previous resolve. In view of this action of the pope, which Louis was determined not to observe, he instructed his minister "to maintain at Rome the rights and the dignity of France;" and in order to support this resolve, he gave him a numerous retinue of military and naval officers, who were to frighten the pope in his own capital. Lavardin's entrance into Rome under such an escort resembled that of a hostile commander. He had also been preceded by several hundred French under-officers, who had entered Rome as private travelers, but who took their quarters near the ambassador's palace, ready for any mischief. Innocent, however, remained firm; he refused to receive the new ambassador, and all the anger of Louis, who seized upon Avignon, and threatened to send a fleet with troops on the Roman coast, had no effect upon him. Lavardin, having remained- eighteen months at Rome, unable to see the pope, was obliged to return to France with his credentials unopened.

The quarrel was not adjusted till the following pontificate; but the distinct immunities of the foreign ambassadors at Rome continued, after various modifications, until the beginning of the 19th century. This quarrel was, however, not the initiative to a misunderstanding between the two sovereigns. It had been previously opened by the right which Louis XIV claimed to possess, in virtue of the Droit de Regne, to appoint to vacant benefices in his kingdom, and to collect the revenues. This right of the French king Innocent XI disputed. Louis. XIV issued edict after edict, the pope bull after bull against them; finally, the French clergy demanded that a council should be assembled. This was done, and on Feb. 3, 1682, the council declared that the French clergy indorsed the action of the king, and that the pope should be notified of their decision. While awaiting his answer, the assembly continued its sittings, intending to put an end to all further papal encroachments by establishing firmly the doctrines of the Galliean Church concerning the temporal power of the popes, their infallibility, and the independence of the king. The result of their deliberation was the famous four propositions promulgated March 16, 1682. (See Gallican Church).

Innocent XI, in a solemn consistory, condemned the: propositions and the bishops who had voted them, and April 11, 1682, issued a brief annulling the proceedings of the French council. In 1686 he also condemned the doctrines of Molinos (q.v.), who was obliged to make a public recantation, September 3,1687, besides suffering for the remainder of his life close confinement in the prisons of the Inquisition. At the close of 1676 Innocent took a threatening attitude towards the Jesuits,' forbidding them, among other things, to receive any novices into their order. They retorted by calling the pope a Jansenist, offered prayers for his conversion, and entered into an alliance with the French king. Innocent XI, however, died only a few years after, August 21, 1689. It was during his pontificate that James II of England became a Romanist, and endeavored, by a succession of bold attempts, not only to give Romanism toleration, but even make it a Church establishment of his country. (Compare Fox, James Ii, p. 332; Hallam, Constit. Hist. 2, 212; Mackintosh, Hist. of Revolution, ch. 5; ‘ Stoughton, Eccles. Hist. of England [Lond. 1870, 2 vols. 8vo], vol. 2, chap. 8.) Stoughton claims that these efforts accorded, however, only "with the daring policy of the Jesuits, who were masters at court, but not with the more cautious measures of the papacy." No doubt this is true in a measure. Innocent XI was evidently unwilling to become master of the English ecclesiastical establishment if to be secured by the aid of an order which he abhorred, and which he was determined upon extinguishing; and this our supposition is strengthened by the demand which James II made upon Rome for a red hat for a Jesuit named Petre. (See James Ii). Two letters of this pope are published by Ughelli, Italia Sacra, 4, 513; 10:53. He wrote also Breve Ad Franciscum Episcopum Apamiensem (Paris, 4To): — Decretum De Sacrce Communionis Usu Datum (Paris, 1679, 4to). See Palatius, It. Intocentius Xi, in the 5th vol. of the Gest. Pontif. Romans vita. d'Innocenzo XI (Venet. 1690); Bruys, Hist. des Popes, 5, 360; Sismondi, Hist. des Franacis, 25:311; J. A. Costa (R. Simon), Hist. de l'Origine des Revenus ecclesiastiques (Francfort, 1684, 12mo); De Larroque, Nouveau Traite de la Regale (1685,12mo); Bayle, Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres (1686); Heidegger, Historia Papatus (Amst. 1698, 4to), pt. 2; De La Luzerne,- Sur la Declaration de l'assemblee du clergg de France en 1682 (Par. 1821, 8vo); F. Buonamici, De Vita et Rebus gestis Innocentii XI (Rome, 1776, 8vo); Herzog, Real-Encyklop. 6:675; Hoefer, Nouv. Biogr. G É neral É , s.v, 919 Ranke, Hist. of the Papacy, 1, 273, 279; Mosheim, Ch. Hist. cent. 17:sec. 2, pt. 1, ch. 1; Aschbach, Kirchen-Lex. 3:464 sq.; Bower, Hist. of the Popes, 7:486 sq.; English Cyclopaedia, s.v.; Chambers, Cyclopaedia, s.v.