Your link (Catholic Encyclopedia) says:
[INDENT]The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, **Benedict IX ** was a man of very different character to either of them. **He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter ** . Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032).
Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries.
The question is if he was 12 years old according to** Raoul Glaber**, then according to who he was 20?
I think he was 20 yrs. old when his Papacy ended because he reigned from 1032 to 1045 A.D. So if he was 12 at 1032, then: 1032 + 12 = 1044 A.D.
So I don’t think 12 yrs is an urban myth.]
And why this Pope was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter? Was he actually a dictator/King who inherited Papacy from his immediate relatives? And despite being a disgrace, was an infallible too at the same time? If not, then how the Catholic Papacy/Magesterium working [during the ‘disgraceful period’ of young Benedict IX], without any infallible spiritual personality/leadership?
BTW, the very next Pope Sylvester III is considered as one of "the illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant.
Since when this amazing dictatorial Papacy ended and democratical Papacy began?
Is that the one that virtually turned the Vatican into a brothel? I think it was the 18 year old kid, and it was about 1000 a.d.