Papal bull caused the black plague?

e61iuser · #1 Oct 8, '09, 10:27 pm

I just found a new allegation online that a papal bull called "Vox in Rama" by Gregory IX caused a severe reduction of cats in Europe (because they were associated with witchcraft) and therefore increased the population of rats causing the black plague.

Not inclined to believe everything I read, I researched on this alleged papal bull and I have failed to find a record or full text of it online, save for a wikipedia entry (we all know how reliable wikipedia is), and the allegation repeated in various witchcraft sites.

Can anyone shed some light on this matter? Was there really a papal bull to this effect and if so, why isn't it publicly available for viewing? If there really is a papal bull that bans or orders cats destroyed, can the spread of the black plague truly be attributed to it? Was the Catholic Church wrong in doing so?

DavidFilmer · #2 Oct 9, '09, 2:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by e61iuser

Was there really a papal bull to this effect

No. This whole thing is a fabrication of Jeff Russell in his 1972 book, "Witchcraft in the Middle Ages" pp 160-161. You cannot find any record of this "Bull" published before this time, and you certainly cannot find any actual text.

A Google search for the quoted terms "Vox in Rama" and "Gregory ix" returns a whopping 84 hits (Google amateurs who attempt to verify this claim and contest that it returns 3000+ hits should click on page 10). None fully cite the actual text, in any language (and only a handful attempt to quote any text at all).

In fact, Gregory IX issued only one Papal Bull - "Mira Circa Nos" (which canonized St. Francis of Assisi). This is significant, but not especially exciting to modern folk. Yet, the quoted term "Mira Circa Nos" returns more than 400 hits in Google (amateurs claiming 5000+ hits, please click on page 41), and among the top five hits, three contain the entire text of the Papal Bull.

This supposed "Papal Bull" is, um, bull****.

e61iuser · #3 Oct 9, '09, 7:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidFilmer

No. This whole thing is a fabrication of Jeff Russell in his 1972 book, "Witchcraft in the Middle Ages" pp 160-161. You cannot find any record of this "Bull" published before this time, and you certainly cannot find any actual text.

A Google search for the quoted terms "Vox in Rama" and "Gregory ix" returns a whopping 84 hits (Google amateurs who attempt to verify this claim and contest that it returns 3000+ hits should click on page 10). None fully cite the actual text, in any language (and only a handful attempt to quote any text at all).

In fact, Gregory IX issued only one Papal Bull - "Mira Circa Nos" (which canonized St. Francis of Assisi). This is significant, but not especially exciting to modern folk. Yet, the quoted term "Mira Circa Nos" returns more than 400 hits in Google (amateurs claiming 5000+ hits, please click on page 41), and among the top five hits, three contain the entire text of the Papal Bull.

This supposed "Papal Bull" is, um, bull****.

Thanks so much David. I knew this sounded too fishy to be true. Besides if it really was historically accurate you'd think it would be more well-known. Looks like people will make up anything just to strike at the truth.

VociMike · #4 Oct 9, '09, 8:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by e61iuser

Looks like people will make up anything just to strike at the truth.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the lesson for today.

Drawmack · #5 Oct 9, '09, 8:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by e61iuser

I just found a new allegation online that a papal bull called "Vox in Rama" by Gregory IX caused a severe reduction of cats in Europe (because they were associated with witchcraft) and therefore increased the population of rats causing the black plague.

Not inclined to believe everything I read, I researched on this alleged papal bull and I have failed to find a record or full text of it online, save for a wikipedia entry (we all know how reliable wikipedia is), and the allegation repeated in various witchcraft sites.

Can anyone shed some light on this matter? Was there really a papal bull to this effect and if so, why isn't it publicly available for viewing? If there really is a papal bull that bans or orders cats destroyed, can the spread of the black plague truly be attributed to it? Was the Catholic Church wrong in doing so?

This is hooey, everyone knows that the Pope spread the black plague by actually biting people himself.

Even if the Bull existed, that wouldn't mean that the Catholic Church had intentionally done so to spread the plague as they would not have known the real cause anymore than anyone else at the time did.

Though, it should be noted that there was a cat shortage during the plague it is arguable if it is cause or effect because the plague also affected live stock to some degree.

(Sorry, no disrespect intended -- I just couldn't resist)

VociMike · #6 Oct 9, '09, 8:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drawmack

This is hooey, everyone knows that the Pope spread the black plague by actually biting people himself.

And let's not forget the Jesuit assassins he dispatched throughout Europe, covered with infected fleas bred in one of the very few unused torture chambers beneath the high altar.

**puzzleannie** · #7 Oct 9, '09, 9:06 am

you forgot some detail, the Jesuit terrorists were albinos

Drawmack · #8 Oct 9, '09, 11:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzleannie

you forgot some detail, the Jesuit terrorists were albinos

You Catholics always confuse your own history. They were not albino's, they were vampires!

**puzzleannie** · #9 Oct 9, '09, 11:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drawmack

You Catholics always confuse your own history. They were not albino's, they were vampires!

well something like that, it must be true I saw the movie

Drawmack · #10 Oct 9, '09, 11:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzleannie

well something like that, it must be true I saw the movie

Right after I finished making the movie in my backyard, but a movie none the less.

VociMike · #11 Oct 9, '09, 11:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drawmack

You Catholics always confuse your own history. They were not albino's, they were vampires!

Not confusing it, whitewashing it.

But you are right. I consulted Dan Brown's seminal textbook on medieval Catholicism and he confirms what you say.

Drawmack · #12 Oct 9, '09, 11:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by VociMike

Not confusing it, whitewashing it.

But you are right. I consulted Dan Brown's seminal textbook on medieval Catholicism and he confirms what you say.

But, Dan Brown can't be right because you said there was an empty torture chamber in Rome and according to Dan Brown they booked to double capacity.

VociMike · #13 Oct 9, '09, 12:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drawmack

But, Dan Brown can't be right because you said there was an empty torture chamber in Rome and according to Dan Brown they booked to double capacity.

Dan Brown wrong?! You go too far, sir. Where are my dueling pistols?...

e61iuser · #14 Oct 9, '09, 1:10 pm

I say! *Puts on monocle*

Dueling pistols? Balderdash! Why in my day we would duke it out by Queen's rules! Toe to toe, 100 rounds!

*Harrumphs*

**Zooey** · #15 Oct 9, '09, 1:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drawmack

You Catholics always confuse your own history. They were not albino's, they were vampires!

They were albinos.
They were NOT vampires.
Everybody knows that they were albino werewolves.

I would give you the rest of the details, but I have to go feed the [albino] bats in the belfry before the Count comes back from his meeting with Mr. Renfield.