Pope Pius VI
(GIOVANNI ANGELICO BRASCHI).
Portrait of Pope Pius VI by Pompeo Batoni
Born at Cesena, 27 December, 1717; elected 15 February, 1775; died at Valence, France, 29 Aug., 1799. He was of a noble but impoverished family, and was educated at the Jesuit College of Cesena and studied law at Ferrara. After a diplomatic mission to Naples, he was appointed papal secretary and canon of St. Peter’s in 1755. Clement XIII appointed him treasurer of the Roman Church in 1766, and Clement XIV made him a cardinal in 1775. He then retired to the Abbey of Subiaco, of which he was commendatory abbot, until his election as Pius VI.
Spain, Portugal, and France had at first combined to prevent his election, because he was believed to be a friend of the Jesuits; he was well disposed towards the order, but he dared not revoke the Bull of their suppression. Still he ordered the liberation of their general, Ricci, a prisoner in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo in Rome, but the general died before the decree of liberation arrived. Upon the request of Frederick II of Prussia he permitted the Jesuits to retain their schools in Prussia; while in Russia, he permitted an uninterrupted continuation of the order. Soon after his accession he took steps to root out the Gallican idea of papal supremacy which had been spread in Germany by Hontheim. Joseph II forbade the Austrian bishops to apply to Rome for faculties of any kind, and suppressed innumerable monasteries. Pius VI resolved to go to Vienna; he left Rome on 27 Feb., 1782, and arrived in Vienna on 22 March. The emperor received him respectfully, though the minister, Kaunitz, neglected even the ordinary rules of etiquette. The pope remained at Vienna until 22 April, 1782. All that he obtained from the emperor was the promise that his ecclesiastical reforms would not contain any violation of Catholic dogmas, or compromise the dignity of the pope. The emperor accompanied the pope on his return as far as the Monastery of Mariabrunn, and suppressed this monastery a few hours after the pope had left it. Scarcely had the pope reached Rome when he again saw himself compelled to protest against the emperor’s unjustifiable confiscation of ecclesiastical property. But when Joseph II filled the vacant See of Milan of his own authority, Pius solemnly protested, and it was probably at this occasion that he threatened the emperor with excommunication. On 23 Dec., 1783, the emperor unexpectedly came to Rome to return the papal visit. He was determined to continue his ecclesiastical reforms, and made known to the Spanish diplomat, Azara, his project of separating the German Church entirely from Rome. The latter, however, dissuaded him from taking this fatal step. To avoid worse things, the pope granted him the right of nominating the bishops in the Duchies of Milan and Mantua, in a concordat dated 20 Jan., 1784 (see Nussi, “Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis et civilibus inter S. Sedem et civilem potestatem”, Mainz, 1870, 138-9).
Death of Pope Pius VI
Joseph’s example was followed in Tuscany by his brother, the Grand Duke Leopold II and Bishop Scipio Ricci of Pistoia. Here the antipapal reforms culminated in the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, where the doctrines of Jansenius and Quesnel were sanctioned, and the papal supremacy was eliminated. In his Bull “Auctorem fidei” of 28 Aug., 1794, the pope condemned the acts, and in particular eighty-five propositions of this synod. In Germany the three ecclesiastical Electors of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne, and the Archbishop of Salzburg attempted to curtail the papal authority by convening a congress at Ems (q.v.). With Portugal the papal relations became very friendly after the accession of Maria I in 1777, and a satisfactory concordat was concluded in 1778 (Nussi, loc. cit., 138-39). In Spain, Sardinia, and Venice the Governments to a great extent followed in the footsteps of Joseph II. But the most sweeping anti-ecclesiastical reforms were carried out in the Two Sicilies. Ferdinand IV refused the exequatur to all papal briefs that were obtained without the royal permission, and claimed the right to nominate all ecclesiastical beneficiaries. Pius VI refused to accept the bishops that were nominated by the king and, as a result, there were in 1784 thirty vacant sees in the Kingdom of Naples alone, which number had increased to sixty in 1798. The king, moreover, refused to acknowledge the papal suzerainty which had existed for eight hundred years. The pope repeatedly made overtures, but the king persisted in nominating to all the vacant sees. In April, 1791, when more than half the sees in the Kingdom of Naples were vacant, a temporary compromise was reached and in that year sixty-two vacant sees were filled (Rinieri, loc. cit., infra).
In response to the application of the clergy of the United States, the Bull of April, 1788, erected the See of Baltimore.
Pius VI put the papal finances on a firmer basis; drained the marshy lands near Città della Pieve, Perugia, Spoleto, and Trevi; deepened the harbours of Porto d’Anzio and Terracina; added a new sacristy to the Basilica of St. Peter; completed the Musee Pio-Clementino, and enriched it with many costly pieces of art; restored the Via Appia; and drained the greater part of the Pontine Marshes.
Tomb of Pius VI at St. Peter’s Basilica.
After the French Revolution, Pius rejected the “Constitution civile du clergé” on 13 March, 1791, suspended the priests that accepted it, provided as well as he could for the banished clergy and protested against the execution of Louis XVI. France retaliated by annexing the small papal territories of Avignon and Venaissin. The pope’s co-operation with the Allies against the French Republic, and the murder of the French attaché, Basseville, at Rome, brought on by his own fault, led to Napoleon’s attack on the Papal States. At the Truce of Bologna (25 June, 1796) Napoleon dictated the terms: twenty-one million francs, the release of all political criminals, free access of French ships into the papal harbours, the occupation of the Romagna by French troops etc. At the Peace of Tolentino (19 Feb., 1797) Pius VI was compelled to surrender Avignon, Venaissin, Ferrara, Bologna, and the Romagna; and to pay fifteen million francs and give up numerous costly works of art and manuscripts. In an attempt to revolutionize Rome the French General Duphot was shot and killed, whereupon the French took Rome on 10 Feb., 1798, and proclaimed the Roman Republic on 15 Feb. Because the pope refused to submit, he was forcibly taken from Rome on the night of 20 Feb., and brought first to Siena and then to Florence. At the end of March, 1799, though seriously ill, he was hurried to Parma, Piacenza, Turin, then over the Alps to Briançon and Grenoble, and finally to Valence, where he succumbed to his sufferings before he could be brought further. He was first buried at Valence, but the remains were transferred to St. Peter’s in Rome on 17 Feb., 1802 (see I). His statue in a kneeling position by Canova was placed in the Basilica of St. Peter before the crypt of the Prince of the Apostles.
Bullarii Romani Continuatio, ed. BARBERI (Rome, 1842 sq.), V-X; Collectio Brevium atque Instructionem Pii Papæ VI quæ ad præsentes Gallicanarum ecclesiarum calamitates pertinent (2 vols., Augsburg, 1796); Acta Pii VI quibus ecclesia catholica calamitatibus in Gallia consultum est (2 vols., Rome, 1871); BOURGOING, Mémoires historiques et philosophiques sur Pie VI et son pontificat (2 vols., Paris, 1900); GENDRY, Pie VI. Sa vie, son pontificat 1777-99, d’après des archives vaticanes et de nombreux documents inédits (2 vols., Paris, 1907); WOLF, Gesch. der Kath. Kirche unter der Regierung Pius VI (Zürich, 1793- 1802), 7 vols. (Josephinistic); BECCATINI, Storia di Pio VI (4 vols., Venice, 1801-02); FERRARI, Vita Pii VI (Padua, 1802); BERTRAND, Le Pontificat de Pie VI et l’Athéisme Révolutionnaire (2 vols., BarleDuc, 1879); SAMPSON, Pius VI and the French Revolution in Amer. Cath. Quarterly Review (New York, 1907), 220-40, 413-40, 601-31; Pius VI in Catholic World, XIX (New York, 1874), 755-64; TIEPOLI, Relazioni sul conclave per la elezioni di papa Pio VI (Venice, 1896); KÖNIG, Pius VI und die Säkularisation, Program (Kalksburg, 1900); SCHLITTER, Pius VI und Joseph II von der Rückkehr des Papstes nach Rom bis zum Abschluss des Konkordats, ibid. II (Vienna, 1894); CORDARA, De profectu Pii VI ad aulam Viennensem ejusque causis et exitu commentarii, ed. BOËRO (Rome, 1855); RINIERI, Della rovina di una Monarchia, Relazioni storiche tra inediti dell’ Archivo Vaticano (Turin, 1910); BALDASSARI, Histoire de l’enlèvement et de la captivité de Pie VI (Paris, 1839), Ger. tr. STECK (Tübingen, 1844); MADELIN, Pie VI et la première coalition in Revue des quest. hist., LXXXI (Paris, 1903), 1-32.
MICHAEL OTT (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Commentaries on how Don Alonso Peres de Guzman sacrificed his own son rather than surrender to the Muslims
August 31, 2026
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In September 1292, Yacub Ben Yussuf, King of Morocco, took over the stronghold of Tarifa. Infant Dom João, brother of Sancho IV the brave, king of Castile and Leon, in fact made a pact with Yacub that enabled him to conquer Tarifa, defended by Alonso Perez de Guzman. Rather than surrender, Guzman allowed his own son, a prisoner of the Infant, to be sacrificed within its walls, a deed that earned him the nickname ‘The Good’ (1294).
In a handwritten letter, King Dom Sancho thanked Guzman for his loyalty, saying, “For the death of your son, which made you like unto our Father Abraham, out of courage, loyalty and fidelity to the oath you had made to me regarding the city of Tarifa, you provided the dagger with which the Moors beheaded him.” This excerpt is taken from Johann Baptist Weiss, História Universal, vol VI, p.603. That page reproduces a painting depicting the heroic gesture of Dom Alonso de Guzman as he throws, from atop the walls, the dagger to the Moors.
From atop the walls, Dom Alonso de Guzman throws the dagger to the Moors.
So this is how that historic episode unfolded: The one Yacub took the town of Tarifa. The king’s brother had made a pact with Yacub so he could pull it off; in other words, he betrayed. Tarifa was defended by Alonso Perez de Guzman, who, in order not to surrender, allowed his own son, a prisoner of the wayward prince, to be sacrificed within its walls.
From atop the wall he threw the dagger for the Moors to kill his son, as if saying, “You are saying you will kill my son if I do not surrender the place. Look, here is a dagger, go ahead and kill him.”
It is an extraordinary move, one with such grandeur as to leave us absolutely at a loss for words.
We can see such feats in our Saint-of-the-Day series and in some episodes in the life of Christian civilization. There is such a great integrity of soul in Don Alonso’s attitude and he takes sacrifice to such a point and bears the pain of his situation in such a manly fashion that no manner of pettiness or fear can be found in him at all.
He could have said, for example – in the romantic fashion in vogue in the 19th century – “Well, go ahead, take my son. Dear son of mine, be thou the pained yet innocent victim of the hateful enemy of Christian civilization.” None of that! He could at least have said, “I watch impassible and indignant, shaking with sorrow, this sacrifice about to be done.” None of that, either.
Castle of Tarifa, where Don Alonso threw the knife to the Moors.
His attitude was like saying, “For you to see that I command my own soul and master even the most legitimate feelings of my paternal love out of love for the Catholic Church, look, here is my dagger.” And he throws it. This really means, “I take to the ultimate degree my victory over the legitimate fears of nature.”
This integrity is really enchanting. One can say this truly is a Catholic man in whom there is no fraud, the praise Our Lord made of St. Bartholomew: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile” [John. 1:47]. No deceit, no concession. He goes all the way to the full length of his duty. This is what is so enchanting in that magnificent move.
One of you could object: Well, Dr. Plínio, all this is true but only to a certain degree. Because in the final analysis, it is a bit inhumane for a father to watch so deliberately the death of his son. I would like to see some uncertainty in that father; I would like to see some tears in his eyes; I would like to see some hesitation: ‘Should I or should I not let them kill him?’ If that father atop the walls had only had a moment of hesitation and then said, ‘Well, go ahead, kill him!’ I would understand and sympathize with him more than when I see that determination from the very first instance, taken to the point of throwing them the dagger with which to kill his son.”
Read More Here
{ 0 comments }