Conclave and the Papal Election

[alshrive]

Now i have lured you here with a serious sounding title, i just wanted to share this-
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=3755&d=1363193679

look athe bird who shares our interest!!!

Seriously though i was quite surprised there wasn't already a thread about conclave.... I'm watching constantly :D

[ElectricPaladin]

look athe bird who shares our interest!!!


The bird is also a wargamer?

[Bigred]

I sincerely hope the Conclave goes with a Pope from South America.

The beating heart of the Roman Catholic church has left Europe. Its time for a Pope that reflects the church's global congregation.

One of the Cardinals from Brazil would be an electrifying statement from the Vatican.

Or they could turn their backs on history and go with another European - again... But seeing how the conclave is made up of men in their 60-70s and heavily stacked by Ratzinger - my expectations are not as high as my hopes.

PS, LOOK Catholic discussion on BoLS - never thought I'd ever see that!

[Mr Mystery]

I've got £20 on Father Finbarr O'Plywood. He's Britain's most kiddy diddliest priest you know. Been moved through 16 separate diocese!

[Gotthammer]

Seriously, how hard can it be to pick a pickled egg out of a jar?


Will be good if they go a "non-traditional" route, either age or location, but I agree it seems unlikely.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Bergoglio? Cool name bro.

[Brakkart]

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio will be Pope Francis I and he's from Argentina. I'm not even slightly religious, but fair credit to the Catholic Church for choosing a new leader from outside Europe for the first time in over a thousand years. Shame he isn't a bit younger though, (He's 76!) but with age comes wisdom supposedly. Here's hoping he can bring about some much needed change for the better.

[DrLove42]

It'll only be good news if hes modern enough to adapt the church. If they stay in their current rut and trend its only going to be worse in the long run

Edit - BBC profile says hes liberal on politics, but Orthodox on sexuality.

So he might persecute the pedo priests, but hes not going to change the biggest issues in the world

[ElectricPaladin]

It'll only be good news if hes modern enough to adapt the church. If they stay in their current rut and trend its only going to be worse in the long run

Edit - BBC profile says hes liberal on politics, but Orthodox on sexuality.

So he might persecute the pedo priests, but hes not going to change the biggest issues in the world

My Catholic friend says that he stresses a serious "love the sinner hate the sin" policy towards homosexuals, which isn't everything, but it is a step up. It's not far from "love the sinner hate the sin" to "love the sinner so much you stop thinking about the sin and just let it freaking go already."

Well, at least not as far as it is from "God hates f@gs."

[DrLove42]

Thats an improvement at least.

But the biggest thing the church could do would be to advocate condoms in the 3rd world. If they'd done that in the first place, AIDS in Africa would be at a fraction of what it is now

[Bigred]

This is the Roman Catholic Church we're talking about.

Its ancient and conservative by its nature. They do everything in babysteps. Still I consider this to be a big step in the right direction for them. It could have been much worse.

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio

A few points:
-He was made Cardinal by John Paul II, not Ratzinger.

-
"As cardinal, Bergoglio became known for personal humility, doctrinal conservatism and a commitment to social justice. A simple lifestyle contributed to his reputation for humility. He lived in a small apartment, rather than in the palatial bishop's residence. He gave up his chauffeured limousine in favor of public transportation, and he reportedly cooked his own meals."

-
"He supports the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease."

-
"In 2009, Bergolio said that extreme poverty and the "unjust economic structures that give rise to great inequalities" are violations of human rights and that social debt is "immoral, unjust and illegitimate." During a 48-hour public servant strike in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bergoglio observed the differences between, "poor people who are persecuted for demanding work, and rich people who are applauded for fleeing from justice"

This could be an interesting Papacy...

[DrLove42]

Starting to like the guy....we'll just have to see how he works the system

[Deadlift]

As long as he doesn't continue the trend of covering up the kiddie fiddlers within the church and makes moves to allow the priests to marry it could be good for the Catholic Church. Can't see either happening to be honest.
The conservatism within the church and its inability to evolve and move with the times will continue to see congregations shrink with each generation.

[Mr Mystery]

My Catholic friend says that he stresses a serious "love the sinner hate the sin" policy towards homosexuals, which isn't everything, but it is a step up. It's not far from "love the sinner hate the sin" to "love the sinner so much you stop thinking about the sin and just let it freaking go already."

Well, at least not as far as it is from "God hates f@gs."

To be honest, I think it's high time the world remembered it's entirely possible to disapprove of something without telling everyone you disapprove of it.

If we each held our peace, the world would be a better place. Though the interwebs might die :p

[Wolfshade]

I was surprised that the Church of Rome elected so quickly; of course this does nothing on my boycott of all things Argentine..

[Nabterayl]

The conservatism within the church and its inability to evolve and move with the times will continue to see congregations shrink with each generation.
I'm not Catholic, but I don't know that it's fair to say that congregations have been "shrinking with each generation." Or rather, I guess it is, but that wording makes it sound like the church is disappearing. But over the past hundred years, the percentage of the world's population that is Catholic has only shrunk (http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Catholic/The-Global-Catholic-Population.aspx#pop) by 1%. So ... I guess technically they're declining? But an average drop of 0.01% every year doesn't exactly put me in mind of some kind of imminent crisis.

[Deadlift]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pope-benedict-and-the-decline-of-american-catholicism-20130211

Maybe not worldwide, but in the States.

Approximately one-third of those who say they were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic; which means that roughly 10% of all Americans are former Catholics. Other surveys — such as the General Social Surveys, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago since 1972 — find that the Catholic share of the U.S. adult population has held fairly steady in recent decades, at around 25%. What this apparent stability obscures, however, is the large number of people who have left the Catholic Church. Losses have been partly offset by the number of people who have changed their affiliation to Catholicism but more importantly by the disproportionately high number of Catholics among immigrants to the U.S.

Which ever way I look at it, The Catholic Church is going to have to modernise to appeal to a younger congregation. As an atheist I personally don't have much interest either way. But then a debate about beliefs and deities is another topic ;)

[eldargal]

The number of Catholics in Europe is increasing,

Never thought I'd see a 'xxxxxxx I' pope. I was half expecting John XXX or whatever they are up to now.:rolleyes:

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I was in KFC eating "chicken"... #swag

[Wolfshade]

The number of Catholics in Europe is increasing,

Never thought I'd see a 'xxxxxxx I' pope. I was half expecting John XXX or whatever they are up to now.:rolleyes:

Of course I doubt that we will live to see Pope Barry I.

Ah well, Francis Solus Unus Tam Longe is what it will be for now instead.

[scadugenga]

The first thing that popped into my mind when hearing about the new Pope was from the movie Stripes:

"Lighten up, Francis..."

It's a good thing I'm not Catholic. That might be considered blasphemy or something. ;)

On a more serious note...here's hoping that he's as much a reformer as they are predicting.

[Bigred]

Wow!

Didn't catch this the first time through - Francis I is the first Jesuit Pope.

That's a BIG deal. Its almost a complete denouciation of Benedict XVI's oppulent demeaner. The Jesuits with their emphasis on social justice and the plight of the poor have never risen to this level in the church. Very interesting.

[Deadlift]

The number of Catholics in Europe is rising

Nope
http://nvonews.com/2013/03/13/papal-conclave-2013-huge-jump-in-catholic-population-in-africa-decline-in-europe/

[eldargal]

Figures, the article I read cited Vatican statistics showing the number of Catholics had increased since 2000 after decades of decline.:rolleyes:

[Psychosplodge]

So we've gone from Naz1 pope to Junta pope....not quite the same ring to it.

[alshrive]

The potential impact of this is staggering. It is a fantastic move for the Catholic Church, I truly feel that His Holiness Francis I will be more in touch with the masses. I have utmost respect at the election of a Jesuit Pope, when poverty (or for those more fortunate austerity) is everywhere in the world this is just so apt. The fact he has chosen an original name shows that he is not one to stick to tradition just for the sake of it and this could well mean progress for the Catholic Church (think of it like Hobbits- "It is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life"). St Francis of Assisi was once asked whether he was thinking of marrying, his response was "yes, a fairer bride than any of you have ever seen," meaning his choice to live in poverty.

More will come as I further reflect on this.

[eldargal]

I wish the media would get its act together, I've seen articles claiming he is both against prophylactics to help combat disease and that he is in favour of them.

[Wolfshade]

Well you had the BBC translator who had issues translating Our Father and Hail Mary...

[alshrive]

yes my wife put that straight up on facebook last night the instant it happened! It did however make me cringe. Also when the subtitles read St Francis a Sissy!

[Deadlift]

I have to admit the more I read and hear about Pope Francis, the more I like. Sounds like he is very in touch with the people and the austerity of the times.

[White Tiger88]

I have to admit the more I read and hear about Pope Francis, the more I like. Sounds like he is very in touch with the people and the austerity of the times.

*Sigh* a possibly non-corrupt\insane pope...........This is a big change so should be interesting to watch. (From a far)

[eldargal]

Well, it looks like he is a supporter of Argentine claims (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-falkland-islands-are-ours-argentina-095445114.html#BCAh3a9) on the Falklands, not that it will do them any good.

Hopefuly he will focus on the myriad challenged facing the Catholic Church and not get involved in nationalist matters.

[Wolfshade]

It seems our differences of opinion extend beyond theological differences...

[Kirsten]

he is very in touch with the people

If they are male and underage? :P

[DrLove42]

Well, it looks like he is a supporter of Argentine claims (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-falkland-islands-are-ours-argentina-095445114.html#BCAh3a9) on the Falklands, not that it will do them any good.

Hopefuly he will focus on the myriad challenged facing the Catholic Church and not get involved in nationalist matters.

Its a good thing hes a religious figure head, not someone with actual political power.

COMPLETE divorce of religion and state should be the status quo.

[Mr Mystery]

If they are male and underage? :P

Yak yak yak!

Love a cheap innuendo me!

[Wolfshade]

Its a good thing hes a religious figure head, not someone with actual political power.

COMPLETE divorce of religion and state should be the status quo.


He is also the head of state for Vatican City so not just a politcal figure but a head of a European State

[Psychosplodge]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/aefb35bd8532da0152ede2a57339ce20/tumblr_mjnjy729Ge1qz9bu3o1_500.jpg

[DrLove42]

He is also the head of state for Vatican City so not just a politcal figure but a head of a European State

Vatican City is a principality though. Do they have a seat in the UN? Or in the EU?

[Brakkart]

The Vatican has special observer status at the UN, and they both can and do take part in debates there. They are not a member of the EU.

[eldargal]

Vatican City is a principality though. Do they have a seat in the UN? Or in the EU?

Ecclesiastical state technically, not a principality. Sovereign is the Bishop of Rome. Cardinals are called princes of the church but they aren't sovereign.

It's interesting that it doesn't really matter where the Pope is from when it comes to Rome. Rome is considered Holy and will always be the seat of the Catholic church barring another major schism which isn't likely now that the Church has little temporal power.

[Phototoxin]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/aefb35bd8532da0152ede2a57339ce20/tumblr_mjnjy729Ge1qz9bu3o1_500.jpg

You do realise that the RCC are one of the largest provider of HIV/AIDS healthcare in the world? The whole 'vatican causes aids' thing is soo old!

[ElectricPaladin]

You do realise that the RCC are one of the largest provider of HIV/AIDS healthcare in the world? The whole 'vatican causes aids' thing is soo old!

With their medieval policy on condoms in Africa, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Or maybe, with that factiod, they have a single leg and have to crawl. If they wanted any credit, they'd be the largest provider of HIV/AIDS healthcare and also get off it about condoms. Or even promote them. There's a radical idea!

[Wildeybeast]

With their medieval policy on condoms in Africa, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Or maybe, with that factiod, they have a single leg and have to crawl. If they wanted any credit, they'd be the largest provider of HIV/AIDS healthcare and also get off it about condoms. Or even promote them. There's a radical idea!

I don't see how advocating responsible sexual activity within the confines of marriage makes them 'medieval'. Optimistically, even delusionally naive, yes, but then that was true when they were spouting it in the medieval period too. Given that africans elect presidents who openly deny the aids epidemic and think that raping virgins will cure you, I think the problem is a little more deep seated than the Catholic stance on condoms. Especially when only 15% of the continent is Catholic.

[ElectricPaladin]

I don't see how advocating responsible sexual activity within the confines of marriage makes them 'medieval'. Optimistically, even delusionally naive, yes, but then that was true when they were spouting it in the medieval period too. Given that africans elect presidents who openly deny the aids epidemic and think that raping virgins will cure you, I think the problem is a little more deep seated than the Catholic stance on condoms. Especially when only 15% of the continent is Catholic.

I never said that the Catholic Church's stance is the problem. I said that it's part of the problem.

The Catholic Church does not advocate responsible sexual behavior. Responsible sexual behavior includes using protection when appropriate. Furthermore, it means being responsible in the context that you actually exist in. If men in Africa are going to go to prostitutes - itself irresponsible, sure - its even more irresponsible to convince them that using condoms is a further sin. Just because you're doing one thing that's dumb doesn't mean that you can't mitigate the dumb by taking some precautions. Speed if you're going to speed, but for God's sake wear a seatbelt.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has a problem with seatbelts and would rather see people drive at 100mph without them then acknowledge the reality and promote them. You don't need to condone something in all contexts in order to accept that they are the lesser evil in some contexts.

But I don't really want to argue about the Catholic Church extendedly. I think they are about as bad as any other hierarchical religion - which is to say almost all of them. And which is also to say that it combines a great deal of good - and potential for good - with a great deal of evil - and the potential for evil. Because that's how all human things work.

[Wolfshade]

I never said that the Catholic Church's stance is the problem. I said that it's part of the problem.

The Catholic Church does not advocate responsible sexual behavior.

What is abstinence if not responsible sexual behaviour?

[ElectricPaladin]

What is abstinence if not responsible sexual behaviour?

There is a very big difference between advocating abstinence - which, by the way, pretty much everyone does - and refusing to acknowledge that there are intermediary steps between "absolutely risky behavior" (ie. sex with random strangers without any form of protection) and "absolutely safe" (ie. abstinence). Now, if the Church only advocated abstinence and refused to comment on sex with protection - sounding like a broken record, responding to all questions with "don't have sex" - that would be one thing. Actively working against practices that could form intermediary levels of risk - condemning condoms rather than just remaining silent on the topic - and therefore save lives is just foolish.

[Psychosplodge]

You do realise that the RCC are one of the largest provider of HIV/AIDS healthcare in the world? The whole 'vatican causes aids' thing is soo old!

That kinda missed the point.

[Wolfshade]

The church of rome believes that any sex outside of marriage is a sin, therefore there is no point in engaging in conversation about less risky behaviour as even that would be a sin.

[Psychosplodge]

But the church can redefine marriage at any point, the fact if I had a daughter I couldn't sell her for two goats and a pig means we've already re-defined marriage.

So why can't the redefine sin? The church as His representatives can declare anything can't they? Haven't you seen Dogma?

[ElectricPaladin]

The church of rome believes that any sex outside of marriage is a sin, therefore there is no point in engaging in conversation about less risky behaviour as even that would be a sin.

That's their prerogative; all I'm saying is that if they had any integrity and compassion, that's all they'd say on the matter. Instead, they actively dissuade people from doing things that could save their lives. We have had Catholic authorities in Africa condemning condoms, claiming that they cause AIDS... it's insane.

As I wrote earlier, if the Church was simply silent on the topic - saying that they couldn't condone it but wouldn't go any further - it would be a different story. A totally different story. I can't understand how they justify their current position.

[Wolfshade]

How is encouraging people to only participate in monogamous sex not actively encouraging them to do things to save their lives?

Let us not forget that condoms are not always 100% safe in terms of both STD prevention and pregnancy avoidance.

The church of rome has made some supurious statements about the effectiveness of condoms suggesting that it provides no barrier to HIV virus.

There are also studies which have suggested that while the use of condoms in other parts of the world have reduced the HIV rates this trend has not been replicated in Africa, even where there are condom initiatives running.

Now that itself isn't a good thing, and the reasons for this would need to be investigated (e.g. are they being used properly?)

The question that the Romans face is an uncomfortable one, the spreading of infection/disease should not be encouraged but doing so is not a sin, the use of condoms is in their opinion a sin, their job is to stop people from sinning.

[ElectricPaladin]

How is encouraging people to only participate in monogamous sex not actively encouraging them to do things to save their lives?

See above re: encouraging people to do X and discouraging Y (which in this case would make X less stupid) not being the same thing. I've made this point enough times that I'm actually not going to make it again. If you're interested in responding to it, you can read what I wrote above.


Let us not forget that condoms are not always 100% safe in terms of both STD prevention and pregnancy avoidance...

There are also studies which have suggested that while the use of condoms in other parts of the world have reduced the HIV rates this trend has not been replicated in Africa, even where there are condom initiatives running.

Africans don't have magic condom-hopping AIDS or magical condom-defeating junk. They have low quality condoms and insufficient education in their use. Were those situations handled, condoms would become effective.

Now, I don't put this entirely at the feet of the Church - I really don't - but maybe both those problems would be a little bit better without the Church standing in the way.


The question that the Romans face is an uncomfortable one, the spreading of infection/disease should not be encouraged but doing so is not a sin, the use of condoms is in their opinion a sin, their job is to stop people from sinning.

I agree that it's an uncomfortable question. I find their answers unconscionable. Judaism has faced the decision of how to deal with the destruction of the temple and the end of almost two thousand years of isolation and poverty. Buddhism had to deal with the death of its founder and the challenges of going from a splinter movement to a mainstream religion. All cultures face challenges and questions, and it's entirely fair to pass judgment on their responses. Simply acknowledging the difficulty of the question is insufficient.

[Wolfshade]

Sigh. The Romans refuse to acknowledge those "intermediary" steps because they are sin in their view. There is not a scale of sin so you can't say having non-monogamous sex with a condom is not a lesser sin that non-monogamous sex without one hence they do not see the point of those steps as they have doctrinal issues.

Sounds like just providing condoms wouldn't be the solution, but instead there needs to be some kind of education is required instead.

You might find their answers unconscionable, they find the idea of any mortal sin, unconscionable. That is not to say that there haven't been some fairly high up members supporting condom usage in certain aspects.

The church of Rome has answered the question, in a manner that is entirely consistent with its centuries of teaching, it is just that not everyone agrees with their solution. Teach against sin.
Indeed, I do not agree with their view on this matter.
The Jews have their own contraverses, as do the Buddhists, indeed there even those who would argue that Buddism is not actually a religion in the first place.

[Wildeybeast]

But the church can redefine marriage at any point, the fact if I had a daughter I couldn't sell her for two goats and a pig means we've already re-defined marriage.

So why can't the redefine sin? The church as His representatives can declare anything can't they? Haven't you seen Dogma?

No, they really can't. The job of the church is to uphold the law of the God and the teachings of Jesus. These things are not mutable (unless God decides to publish some FAQ's to the Bible but he seems worse than GW for updating people on controversial and poorly explained rules :D). There areas of debate stem from where biblical teachings are unclear and the church has to do some interpretation to apply them to modern times. On the issue of marriage, 1 Corinthians 7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207%20&version=NIV) sets out very clear rules on what is and isn't allowed in marriage.

By contrast, they could actually change their minds on condoms. That view is based on interpretations about the sanctity of life and the hilarious Genesis 38: 8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2038:%208-10&version=NIV). The catholic church takes the view that what earned Onan death was wasting semen (God's sacred way of producing life), but it is equally valid to read that passage so that his sin was failing to uphold his duty as brother in law. Given the whole theme of the Old Testament is about contractual obligations, it would actually make more sense to read it that way, so there is scope to change the condom thing (hence why most Protestants have no issue with them). They never will so long as they keep electing popes to maintain the status quo, but that's another matter entirely.

Defining sin is a tricky one. Sin is basically doing anything God doesn't want you to do or failing to do something he does want you to do. The issue is working out what he does and doesn't want you to do; Onan illustrates this problem perfectly.

[ElectricPaladin]

No, they really can't. The job of the church is to uphold the law of the God and the teachings of Jesus. These things are not mutable (unless God decides to publish some FAQ's to the Bible but he seems worse than GW for updating people on controversial and poorly explained rules :D)...

As a Jew, I'd like to point out that we have been publishing an FAQ on the bible for years. It's called the Talmud.

[Fizzybubela]

We sure have. :D

[Psychosplodge]

A well reasoned argument

But what about Papal Indulgence?


As a Jew, I'd like to point out that we have been publishing an FAQ on the bible for years. It's called the Talmud.


We sure have. :D

:D
Brilliant...

[Nabterayl]

But what about Papal Indulgence?

I don't ... think that was a serious question? But just in case, an indulgence is (and was) neither forgiveness of sin nor a declaration that a given action was not sinful. Theologically speaking, and indulgence has nothing to do with God. Indulgence is simply an alternative form of penance for sin.

[Psychosplodge]

No I meant the thing were whatever the pope says god will support? (The entire plot for Dogma?)
So if he changes decrees something unsinful....it is...?

[Wildeybeast]

Papal supremacy is what you are thinking of. The Pope can change interpretations where rules are unclear, but he can't say 'adultery is fine now kids, have fun'. He can't over rule God.


As a Jew, I'd like to point out that we have been publishing an FAQ on the bible for years. It's called the Talmud.

As have Catholic and Protestant churches. That's basically what theology is. My point was that these amount to the debates we see in the rules forums. Until God himself steps in and issues something definitive, such commentaries and interpretations are just personal opinion, no matter how well supported by RAW or RAI they may be.

[ElectricPaladin]

Papal supremacy is what you are thinking of. The Pope can change interpretations where rules are unclear, but he can't say 'adultery is fine now kids, have fun'. He can't over rule God.

That's the difference. We can.

What? We're the ones who have got to live with these meshuggah laws, not him!

[Nabterayl]

No I meant the thing were whatever the pope says god will support? (The entire plot for Dogma?)
So if he changes decrees something unsinful....it is...?
Oh, a plenary indulgence. Same thing, but it's a total replacement for penance as opposed to partial replacement. The notion that the Pope, even to Catholics, decides what's sinful is a Hollywood/Protestant/Protestant Hollywood misperception (again, speaking as a religious Protestant here). As I expect you will not be surprised to learn, Dogma does not exhibit a nuanced understanding of Catholic theology.

As Wildey ably explained, the Church's theological, social, and moral authority to declare what's sinful fundamentally rests on its ability to explain that action X is or is not in line with the teachings of Jesus (let's use that term, which could be misinterpreted too narrowly, but is less likely to be misinterpreted than "the teachings of Scripture," which is routinely misinterpreted too broadly by people who know just enough Christian doctrine to be dangerous* :p). The historical to-do between Protestants and Catholics has tended to obscure, at least in predominantly Protestant cultures, the fact that Catholics quite agree with their Protestant cousins that theological doctrine must be founded on Scripture. To give a 40K analogy, the nature of wargaming means that the rules are whatever two opponents say they are. If two players got together with their Privateer Press miniatures and agreed to play Warmachine using those models, the nature of their two-man community is such that they can do that. However, at that point, they cannot credibly claim to be playing Warhammer 40,000. It is true that in 40K the rules can be modified however two players agree, but if the rules aren't founded on the published 40K rules, you aren't playing 40K.

Similarly, all brands of Christianity have to have doctrine that is founded on Scripture. As with any text, there are areas where it is unclear whether the text permits something and others where it is quite clear. Let me give two examples:

Jesus agreed with the rabbis that the greatest commandment is "you shall love the Lord your God in all your heart and in all your soul and in all your understanding" (my translation). You can look through the rest of the text but there are no passages contradicting that notion. If the Pope declared that it is sinful to love the Lord your God in all your heart and in all your soul and in all your understanding, that would not make it so. He could stamp ex cathedra on the proclamation till the cows came home, and nobody would buy it. The Pope cannot simply declare things sinful or unsinful in a vacuum; he's bounded by (among other things) the text of Scripture.

On the other hand, in religion as in wargaming, the questions people have are rarely squarely addressed in the text. For instance, Jesus also said, "But I say to you that everyone who looks upon a wife in order to lust after her already has committed adultery with her in his heart" (my translation again). Now, if a person has been eyeing up a married gal and planning ways that he can have sex with her, this text is pretty clearly on point. If you're looking at a woman to fan the flames of your desire because you actually want to have sex with her, you can't defend that on moral grounds by saying, "But I haven't actually had sex with her yet!" But there are not that many people who wonder about that sort of situation. A lot more people wonder about the moral turpitude of looking or thinking about a gal of indeterminate marital status (on the internet, say) in order to get their rocks off. What does this text say, if anything, about that situation?

My answer to that is probably clear from the way I translated gunaika, which (owing to ancient Greek social mores can) mean either "woman" or "wife" depending entirely on context. But you can probably see how honest people can disagree as to the interpretation of that quote vis a vis pornography (or plain old sexual fantasies starring your woman of choice). Imagine what would happen if the BoLS rules lounge got hold of that one. Hopefully you agree there is room for people to disagree in good faith. If not, I've picked a bad example, but you probably get the idea.

This kind of disagreement - where there is room for honest disagreement - where the Catholic Church provides more structure for resolution. In this kind of rules-lawyery dispute, the Pope can act essentially as a Supreme Court by declaring an official interpretation. Like the Supreme Court, he doesn't do it often, and like the Supreme Court, the interpretation still has to be founded on the underlying text. This is perhaps not so extraordinary for an organization of over a billion people who are all interpreting the same text; Lord knows the 40K community is way smaller than that and we b1tch and moan all the time that our central interpretive authority isn't responsive enough. But the Protestant world has nothing like it; when Protestants disagree over an interpretation of Scripture, our tradition is simply to keep arguing. Protestants have core theological questions about which we have been arguing for nearly half a millennium, which looks pretty stupid from a certain point of view.

Now of course, most things that people actually care about do fall under the heading of areas of Scripture where the application of the relevant texts to the question is not crystal clear, and those are situations where the Pope could, if he felt like Supreme Courting it up, declare a different official interpretation than is current. Just like with SCOTUS reversing itself, he might still have to make a persuasive interpretive argument to get any kind of widespread buy-in, but it could be done. Of course, also as with SCOTUS, it would be an abuse of the papacy's power to reverse the official interpretation of the text unless the pope actually believed that the current official interpretation is wrong. This is even more true in matters of religion than in matters of constitutional law. Just as the role of the Supreme Court is to remind the people of the limits they agreed to put on themselves, even if transgressing those limits seems like a good idea and in so doing enhance their liberty (unless we believe that the constitution itself is bad), so too is the role of a church.

As to the specific theology of indulgences, in the Catholic Church there are essentially two things that happen when one sins. The first is that your relationship with God is soured. If you have kids, you are familiar with the analogy most commonly used to describe this situation. Yesterday I told my two year old daughter to put her dirty socks in the hamper. She refused. This adversely affected her ability to hang out with me on the couch and watch My Little Pony with me. Of course, it did not adversely affect my willingness to take a bullet for her. The second thing that happens is that one asks a priest to prescribe a penance. The point of this is to put one in the right frame of mind to acknowledge one's wrong and be contrite about it. My daughter eventually put the socks in the hamper, tearfully showed me what she had done, and all was well between us (perhaps you can see why Protestants dispense with this second thing).

An indulgence is an alternative to the second thing. On its face you can see how this is probably no big deal. But you can also see how people might begin to take it the wrong way. When a person has sinned, what ought to happen (since they themselves believe they have sinned) is that they want to make it up to the person sinned against. But it often happens that we need help to feel that way. If you've ever not been able to stop being mad at or ashamed to face your spouse or significant other, you know what this is like even without needing to be religious. Penance is intended to help this. Let's take a very minor sin. I often work in San Francisco, where there are a lot of deserving homeless and a lot of drugged-out undeserving homeless. One day, feeling fed up, I say something contemptuous to the next homeless person I see. The sin here is that I was unkind to a stranger, and also that I have no compassion for the entire class of homeless people. You don't need to know much about Jesus to know that he would not approve of that, even if he wouldn't necessarily empty his wallet to every homeless person who asked.

So what should my penance be? Maybe I should live on the streets for a week. Or maybe I should fund a soup kitchen. Both of those are maybe a little extreme (I'm exaggerating for the example), but both are probably sensible even though one of them costs money. And honestly, me funding a soup kitchen may well do more good in the long run than me living on the streets for a week.

The objection people had/have to the abuses of the indulgence "system" were twofold. First, there was a sense (widely shared after the fact, including by me, but also by Catholics at the time) that people were focusing on penance at the expense of actually repenting. They had begun to dread their penance more than the sundering of their relationship with God, and thus were content to pay their way out of penance whether or not they ever put their proverbial socks in the hamper. This is, for all sorts of reasons, not the behavior we expect of people who actually believe - and there are all sorts of reasons we might be concerned by rich people who don't actually believe (particularly if we live in the Middle Ages or Renaissance). Second, there was a sense that people didn't actually understand what indulgences were. Their official definition as alternative penance never changed, but there was a sense that people thought they were actually buying forgiveness of sin (a sense I have to agree with, seeing as here we are in 2013 and plenty of people don't seem to know that they aren't that).

[Wildeybeast]

Very well put indeed Nab, though I'd like to flag up something on the indulgence thing. The objections you make are perfectly valid, but in addition there are two other issues which protestants got het up about. One is that they were exploited by some members of the clergy as a means of gaining temporal power for their own, less than godly, purposes. The second is the idea that you can in some way buy forgiveness. To suggest that human actions can in some way influence or even bind God to a course of action was a big issue. Divine Grace cannot be earned, its very nature is that it is freely given by God. Furthermore, we are incapable of redeeming our own sins. If we were able to do so, there would have been no need for the sacrifice of Jesus.

[Psychosplodge]

That is a really well thought out response.
I believe Kevin Smith (writer/directer of Dogma) is a lapsed catholic, just for reference.

Also it's cruel to deprive a child of MLP :(

[Nabterayl]

Quite true, Wildey. As with a lot of Protestant objections to "popery," I think those are objections to the way people started misconstruing the doctrine (albeit on a wide scale, as even the Catholics of the time admitted) rather than the doctrine itself, but quite true.

[Wildeybeast]

Very true. The Catholic church was as guilty as anyone of losing sight of what the various doctrines actually were. The Council of Trent did do a lot to address such issues, though very much after the horse had bolted.