Papal Powers

Hello everyone,

there has been much speculation on various topics about the powers of the Pope, indeed at times the discussion seems to have been cast as though G10 is nothing more than the Pope trying to stop other Players doing what they like.  This is not the case at all and hopefully this topic will clarify what I understand to be Papal Powers and provide a few hints as to how I, as the Pope in G10, tend to use them.

Deacon's long and successful experience of playing the Pope in an earlier game do not necessarily reflect changes to the rules in a later game, as I am sure anyone who has played in games from long ago will have plenty of examples how things have changed.

I will not be engaging in long disputes via the forum or messages, so if you want to know what I will do in the game, please write letters in the game and reply to them there.

Thank you.

Welcome to the party!

Papal States vs Papacy
The Papal States and the Papacy are different, though ultimately the Pope is responsible for both.  

The Pope rules the Catholic Church absolutely, and all clergy owe him a duty of obedience.  In 1700 there were an estimated 72M Catholics worldwide and spiritually they look to the Pope for leadership.  This may be a small number by the standards of China or India, but in a European scale it is nearly 4 times the population of France.  So the Pope has huge influence on a global basis, so must be careful what he says.  Inevitably he will upset secular rulers from time to time, but that really doesn't matter because the Pope does not answer to them.

The clergy are not responsible to any secular ruler, but governed by Canon Law and responsible through the various Papal tribunals and courts to the Pope.  This has been a source of tension at times between secular rulers and the Papacy, but legally the separation of powers actually helped secular rulers and their nobility.  Secular rulers knew that if they overstepped the mark, their nobles could and would appeal to the Pope to safeguard them from excesses.  So the system tended to bring stability and reduce conflict.  Of course not all rulers see it as such, so sought some degree of control over the appointment of bishops, which they hoped would shield them from troublesome clerics and foreign influence.  Any assertion of secular powers over the clergy tends to be short-lived since the Pope can move clergy between countries.  Thus the 'powers' of the Galician Church are somewhat overstated and nullified by wider provisions of Canon Law.  I will not say more about this since it may become a factor in G10.

Much Canon Law is founded on the principle that clergy lose the privileges of nobility (to defend their honour, fight duels, etc), and that secular nobility (including princes) therefore allow them freedom of movement and expression.  To attack the clergy in any way is to break the code of nobility and is always a cowardly act which earns those who indulge in it, the contempt of their peers not just in their own country, but around the world.

The Church accepts that secular rulers are supreme within their own territories and must have the freedom to make and enforce laws for the good of their nation, but the church is always superior to states - something even protestants accept.  Consequently, on ordination or admission to religious orders, clergy cease to be subjects of that secular ruler and become subjects of the church (not subjects of the Papal States), ruled by Canon Law, not secular law, administered by Papal Courts in the Vatican, of which the Pope is the head.  On my asset list there are several courts with judicial appointments already made, though working out which is responsible for a particular branch is ongoing since the titles do not always respond to history.

The biggest problem for secular rulers who wish to challenge the Pope is that the Pope cannot be removed.  He has 1700 years of tradition and legal authority behind him, a vast civil service who have met virtually every argument against Papal authority over this time and beaten off all challenges.  However ingenious the dispute, it will have been considered before and upheld in favour of the Papacy by many rulers in the past.  Ultimately they know that the result of challenging the Pope is that a faction will emerge in their own country which defends the Pope, and the damage will be done to themselves, not to the Papacy or the Church.  The Papacy doesn't care whether the schism lasts a day or a thousand years, it will just continue to uphold tradition.  That's its function.  It does not pay much attention to treaties between secular powers, provided they do not infringe the operation of the Church or put Catholics at a disadvantage.  The church did not, for example, accept parts of the Treaty of Westphalia, which is one reason why I referred to UDP as 'breakaway northern provinces of Flanders'.  I am providing a full explanation of this in the current game turn so will not go into it here before it has appeared in the newspaper.  However, I will state that the church has and always will talk to heretics irrespective of whether their state is recognized (St.Peter could not have performed his function if he shut himself in the catacombs and refused to talk to representatives of the Roman Empire, for by contact many were converted, including ultimately the Emperor himself).  Non-recognition does not mean that the Pope is about to declare war on them!

The Papal States is a collection of territories whose head of State is the Pope.  It has its own separate Parliament, own nobility, own armed forces, own merchants, etc.  It is a state just like any other, just happens to be ruled by the Pope.  Historically it also had territories within other parts of Italy and France (Avignon).  There has been some forum discussion trying to discredit the Papal States, referring to the Donation of Constantine and repeating the assertion of Luther that the document was a forgery.  I don't know whether it was or not, but it doesn't really matter either way.  Land was donated to the Papal States long before that document, so people can look up the Donations of Pepin, later grants by Holy Roman Emperors, etc.  These cover largely the same territories, and none of these documents have been claimed to be forged.  The Papal States also grew as Italian noble families feuded, and to stop one side or the other from gaining control of estates, they donated them to the Church.  As ultimate feudal overlord, when noble lines died out, those lands also tended to end up in Papal control.  This did not just happen within the Papal States, but throughout Italy, leaving the Church as the largest landowner by far.  Noble families sought to regain control of these lands by gaining power within the church, but since Catholic clergy cannot marry and secular nobles tend to die in battle, it is no surprise that this trend led to ever larger landholdings and the dominance of the church in Italy.

Family ties also encouraged the Pope to be seen as arbiter of disputes within Italy, so when one state is threatened, or factions fought each other, often the only leadership which all would accept was that of the Pope.  This was not a reflection of his religious authority, but the dominance of Church landholdings in Italy.  It is therefore quite historically correct that in G10, Genoa, Tuscany, Naples and others have looked to the Papacy to shield them from the aggression of others.  If that aggression disappears then it is quite possible that they will go back to disagreeing among themselves once more!

The modern attitude is for there to be a strict separation between secular and religious authority, but in 1700 this was not how the Papacy/Papal States operated or could be made to operate given family ties between the Italian nobility and the church.  Any reform of this would take a better player than me, so I'm stuck with it.  It was hard enough for the Holy Roman Empire (with thousands of small states) to organise itself and accept an Emperor and Imperial Institutions.  Even then, after a few hundred years of operation, it was difficult for capable emperors to centralise beyond a certain point.  Italy lacks even the basic shared institutions which is probably why it was the last major European nation to come together and even then rather imperfectly.

So from the Papal perspective it is almost like running 2 positions with different demands and different priorities, different competencies and powers, different mechanisms and appealing to different groups.  What goes down well with one group may not with the others.  The (secular) Papal States are primarily interested in trade, like Genoa/Venice, but without their advantages.  The (religious) Papacy has global priorities, does not measure its success in money, but by increasing religious fervor and gaining converts.  At times it may be difficult to reconcile the two, and those who do not understand the difference are likely to misinterpret Papal statements.

To give one example which will be clear this coming turn ... the judgement in respect of the Spanish Succession has been made.  It is not for the Pope to implement that judgement, but others to do so.  Occupying former Spanish lands which have been assigned to another country will not change the judgement, but puts the occupying force at odds with the law and the population.  It gives a clear casus belli against them and ultimately those provinces will rebel and return to those who are legally entitled to rule them, as per the judgement.  The judgement was not political, but legal.  This is something many players seem to forget.  In making the judgement the Pope was not against any particular side, but just looking at the law.

Excommunication
There is also some confusion over Excommunication.  The game rules simplify what is a complex topic and tend to separate it from its basis of Canon Law.  A Pope should not excommunicate for political reasons, and although in the past it may have appeared to have happened in this way, there must always be a spiritual reason for excommunication.  In case players are worried I will not excommunicate anyone for political reasons!

The Pope is bound by Canon Law, but the Canon Law revised by the Council of Trent was somewhat harsher than that used today, so some of Deacon's observations about Papal Powers may be correct now, but not then.  Obviously I have to go by the historic Canon Law and its provisions.

In respect of Excommunication, it is very interesting (for me at least) to see what matters were so serious to demand excommunication.  The Councils of the Church, and Canon Law generally, evolved to deal with the abuse of power (infringement of the rights of the Church or to ensure clerical discipline).  This point is very important - there would never have been canons to prohibit abuses if those abuses had not at some point happened.  So Canon Law aims at restoring the historic and traditional position which had been accepted before those abuses happened, and therefore we can use it as a guide to what was accepted by secular law in respect of the operation of the church.  

Minor matters fall within the power of the local bishop to lift; moderate matters fall within the Papal tribunals; more serious matters require the Pope himself to be satisfied.   In later revisions to Canon Law more matters are dealt with locally, but in 1700, most were reserved to the Pope or his tribunals.

Examples of Matters left to the local bishop:
1. trying to enter marriage in front of a non-Catholic minister, or in the explicit or implicit understanding that one or more of the children are to be baptized outside the Catholic Church, or giving knowingly one's children to be baptized by non-Catholics (can. 2319)
2. making false relics or knowingly selling them, distributing them and expose them to public veneration (can. 2326),
3. physical violence against a cleric, monk or nun (can. 2343 § 4),

Examples of Matters reserved to Papal Tribunals:
1. commercially dealing with indulgences (can. 2327),
2. being initiated to Freemasonry or other associations of the kind, acting against the Church and legitimate powers (can. 2335),
3. trying to absolve from a penalty reserved to the Holy See in a special or most special manner without having the faculty to do so (can. 2338 § 1),
4. giving aid to vitandus excommunicates in their delict, or, as a cleric, knowingly and freely celebrating the Divine Office together with them (can. 2338 § 2),
5. taking a bishop, abbot or prelate nullius, or one of the highest superiors of papally recognized orders to secular court w.r.t. doing his office (can. 2341),
6. violating the enclosure of a convent (can. 2342),
7. taking part in a duel, in any function (can. 2351),
8. trying to enter a (civil) marriage as a cleric from the rank of subdeacon and above, or a monk or nun with solemn vows (can. 2388 § 2),
9. commit simony (can. 2392),
10. incepting, destroying, hiding or substantially changing a document directed to the diocesan curia, as a vicar capitular or canon of the chapter (during a vacancy only?) (can. 2405),

Matters specially reserved for the Papacy:
1. having been a suspect of heresy for six months without clearing the suspicion (can. 2315)
2. editing books of apostates, heretics and schismatics that defend apostasy, heresy or schism, or reading, without due permission, such books or those in particular forbidden by the Apostolic see (the latter did not include the whole Index, can. 2318),
3. simulating Holy Mass or the sacramental absolution, without being a priest (can. 2322),
4. appealing against the Pope to a future Council (can. 2332),
5. taking recourse to secular powers to hinder the promulgation of acts of the Apostolic See or its legates, or hinders their promulgation or execution with force or fear (can. 2333)
6. giving laws or decrees against the freedom and the rights of the Church (can. 2334 no. 1)
7. hindering the Church, directly or indirectly, to exercise her power of governance, in both the external and the internal forum, taking recourse to secular power for doing so (can. 2334 no. 2),
8. taking a Cardinal, a Papal Legate, a major official of the Roman Curia, or one's own diocesan bishop to a secular court w.r.t. their actions in office (can. 2341),
9. physical force against a Cardinal, Papal Legate or any bishop (can. 2343)
10. usurping goods and rights of the Church (can. 2345),
11. forging Apostolic letters (can. 2360),
12. falsely accusing a confessor of the crime of solicitation (can. 2363),


In general, any denial of the church's freedom to operate is deemed to be more serious than a local brawl, so is referred up to the Pope.

Canons 2333 and 2334 exempt clergy from any secular law, can.2341 underlines the protection for bishops and cardinals, can.2343 covers the disappearance of Cardinal Lippi.  All these crimes against the church are so serious that they bring mandatory excommunication.  The church clearly takes its freedom to operate across all lands without hindrance very seriously.

I will not detail what excommunication means (yet) because it is possible this may occur shortly in the game and the measures to be taken will be stated in the newspaper before they appear as information on the forum.

But for non-Catholics, who don't understand about the principles of religious sanction, for excommunication to be lifted, it requires 3 aspects:
i)  Repentance - the excommunicant must be genuinely contrite, recognise his error and, usually after some time of re-education, prove he is ready to be readmitted to the Body of Christ (the Church).
ii)  Restitution, either to God (through the church), and/or to the one who has been wronged.  Where it is possible, it is preferable to make restitution to the one who has been wronged rather than the church, for this is the most clear demonstration that the excommunicant is sincere.  Restitution to the church is never monetary (that would be simony), though the church can require donations to catholic charities or the rebuilding of churches, etc.
iii)  Penance, some act carried out under the authority of the church.  This is not the same as restitution.  Refusal to do penance is an act of disobedience to the Church which inevitably means the excommunicant has not repented, so we are back to the first stage and the cycle starts again until the church is satisfied.

Welcome to the Forum Papa Clement, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Certainly seems you have done your homework on the research side of your position, could well be the game takes on a whole new dimension with an activley involved Papal position.

Thank you ... I try!

You face the same challenges I had in determining what exactly was canon law in 1700. I own a relatively current copy, but never did find a copy of what applied in period. Maybe you've had better luck. I wouldn't doubt it is one of the reasons that Richard has been a bit loose on this subject. Without a definitive resource, hard to be perfectly on point.

For instance, you reference a ban on freemasonry, except that hasn't happened in period yet. The first ban on freemasonry didn't arise until 1738: Wikipedia on Papal Ban on Freemasonry

Of course, you can always promulgate it early! As Pope in an earlier game, I researched some of the beautifications and canonizations that occurred in period and the like as well.

Welcome Papa Clement, you have enlightened me/us on so many points that I had not realised how much was missing when having an inactive Papal States. Enjoy your time in the game

[quote="Papa Clement"]Excommunication

Welcome to Papa Clement

Betting on the quarter deck of the Le Belle Isle is that:

Louis XIV is going to get excommunicated under:

4. appealing against the Pope to a future Council (can. 2332),
5. taking recourse to secular powers to hinder the promulgation of acts of the Apostolic See or its legates, or hinders their promulgation or execution with force or fear (can. 2333)
6. giving laws or decrees against the freedom and the rights of the Church (can. 2334 no. 1)
7. hindering the Church, directly or indirectly, to exercise her power of governance, in both the external and the internal forum, taking recourse to secular power for doing so (can. 2334 no. 2),

The Duke of Savoy is going to get done for :

9. physical force against a Cardinal, Papal Legate or any bishop (can. 2343)
10. usurping goods and rights of the Church (can. 2345),

While Forbin etc is probably going to get done for dauling plus

9. physical force against a Cardinal, Papal Legate or any bishop (can. 2343)
10. usurping goods and rights of the Church (can. 2345),
11. forging Apostolic letters (can. 2360),
12. falsely accusing a confessor of the crime of solicitation (can. 2363),


Though it probably should be noted that the Royal French lawyers have 500 years of experience of dealing with Papal claims and in may ways is the French Church and State was created by Philip Augustus, St Louis and Louis XIV defending themselves from the "Imperial Papacy" of Innocent III etc

As I said earlier excommunication is going to paint a big TARGET on by poor little company of merchants who have worked so hard to make sure they had all the correct paper work and were legal

Looks like its either exile to Scotland and a diet of salted oats in water & deep fried haggis or ???????

Thanks Deacon ... you are quite right, but the Vatican is translating more historic documents and putting them online as part of a major project.  The current Canon Law is useless for the game.

The major revisions to Canon Law were 1983 (which reflected Vatican 2), 1917 (which was the most comprehensive attempt to simplify it since the 600s), and of course the 1582 compilation which reflected the Council of Trent, but didn't really change that much.  As you know, Trent stalled most progress throughout the church and although there were minor additions to Canon Law after that, it wasn't until the 1917 simplification that it was a little more intelligible.  You should be able to find the 1917 translation online, but I was able to find extracts from a textbook(manual) from around 1860 which covers the important aspects for the game.  That explains the freemasonry reference I didn't spot.  As a source to use in the game it is probably as useful as I'm going to get.   I wish I could say it is a rattling good yarn, but unfortunately it is about as boring and dry as you would expect it to be.  I'm sure someone else will come along and find an earlier source if they can be so minded, but I would be very surprised if the basic principles and rights of the clergy have changed in the period we are looking at.

I have also briefly looked into some of the canonizations of our period, but was rather disappointed.  Last turn I did complete the canonization of St.Vincent de Paul, a few years ahead of when it happened historically, but that was for a specific purpose relevant to the game turn.  It isn't something I plan in doing regularly, but if you can find a deserving cause and supply proof of the required miracles, do let me know and I'll consider it.  

Major doctrinal disputes seem to have died down by 1700, and I don't see the point in causing France any more short term trouble over Quietism.  If I was looking for something then I could use Jansenism instead, but I'm sure you will understand that I am trying to be fair to France in the hope that King Louis will see sense and avoid fighting a war nobody wants.  It may be that even if France does choose peace and is rightly praised across Europe, one of his allies may shoot him in the foot to get the war they hope for and then of course the situation is somewhat different.  It is very easy for players to seek war using French units and French money, for if they lose France pays the price.   They may have had a good game at someone else's expense, but it is somewhat short-sighted and not very fair on France, for as more players sense French weakness and declare war there could be very little of France left to pick up.  Sometimes it is better to accept what you have rather than risk losing it.  Things change very quickly in the game, for who could have predicted recent events in Poland?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Looks like its either exile to Scotland and a diet of salted oats in water & deep fried haggis or ???????

[/quote]

We can offer you whisky and golf too...by the way have I ever mentioned the long proud tradition of Aberdonian privateering?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

While Forbin etc is probably going to get done for dauling plus ...


Looks like its either exile to Scotland and a diet of salted oats in water & deep fried haggis or ???????

Don't panic Stuart ... Forbin can challenge as many nobles as he likes to duels - only the clergy are prohibited from dueling (or officiating at a duel) under Canon Law.  Of course he might not win them all.

I won't be drawn on the forum over the issue of the Galician Church, but you can expect me to be well prepared in any debate.

No Pope would force Forbin into exile in Scotland.  It would be unfair on the Scots.  

I think you're doing fine people forget your kingdom is literally the Roman Catholic Church and its Orthodox Arm in the East so if you want to place agents, have small military forces backed by Inquisitors and do other things you can I would so abuse your position since its nearly around half the planet.

And the Abyssinian Empire is Orthodox and well is likely kind of a rival in Africa but is still Christian I can see some political activities of joint interest such as promoting Christianity the fact is I'm a lot more pleasant than other regional powers not Christian. Doctrinal issues aside.

But I think your doing fine and hope to see more of your actions and if you send me a letter you will get a cordial reply.

Thanks tkolter.  I sent my turn back yesterday, but do feel free to send me a letter of introduction.  I'm always looking to improve ecumenical relations with non-Catholic nations and I'm sure you will be able to tell me all about religion in Abyssinia.

My understanding of the historical source of the Papal states was as an inheritance, but not agreed from what was the Exarchate of Ravenna. The legitimacy of church entitlement to lands and the various "legal" documents which appeared throughout Europe is often recognised as being one of the greatest, if not the greatest set of forgeries in history. This does not reflect on the game player, but historical accuracy is important as I suspect we all have an interest in history.

Basileus wrote:My understanding of the historical source of the Papal states was as an inheritance, but not agreed from what was the Exarchate of Ravenna. The legitimacy of church entitlement to lands and the various "legal" documents which appeared throughout Europe is often recognised as being one of the greatest, if not the greatest set of forgeries in history. This does not reflect on the game player, but historical accuracy is important as I suspect we all have an interest in history.

There is a risk of confusing 2 separate issues here.   I agree that many lands did indeed come from what was the Exarchate of Ravenna as it collapsed under waves of invasion and families gifted their lands to the Papacy.  But far from invalidating any Papal title, it supports it.  If the Count of Toulouse gifted his land to the church then it would belong to the church, however irritated the King of France may be, indeed he may well gift his land to the church specifically to irritate the King of France.

I do take issue with the suggestion that all documents (and by implication all gifts of land to the church) are the result of forged documents.  To get away with one forgery is possible, but not hundreds over hundreds of years.  The strongest support for any Papal claim is that for many generations it has not been challenged, which surely it would have been initially at the time by those who would otherwise have inherited, and ultimately by secular overlords who would have lost tax revenue due on it.   Historical accuracy is important, as you acknowledge, Basileus.

You will be pleased to know that the historical Pope Clement was something of an antiquarian who rather than repainting ceilings, expanded the Vatican library and employed teams of archivists some of whom rediscovered ancient Christian writings.  I do intend to follow his example and who knows what gems I will discover?  Lost gospel fragments?  Or perhaps a missing game letter from France?  

Thanks for the pointer, I should look to the Vatican to see what's available then at some point.

Much of my knowledge is dated. I played another PBM game where canon law and church history played an important role so spent a lot of time on it, but that was more than 20 years ago. I did some more when I played the Pope in game 3, but the issue of canon law never really arose, so I didn't try too hard to find good reference materials on period canon law.

On the forgery, I think there's some misunderstanding.

There is the Donation of Pepin which was the genesis of the Papal States. And then there was the Donation of Constantine which was the forgery. My understanding, echoed here: Papal States History, is that the latter is the basis for Papal Claims upon other parts of Italy like Naples.

I think I mucked the attribution of this earlier, muddling the two but my point about the questionable nature of the Papal claims on Naples stands. In period, it was known that the latter was a forgery and hence there was some polite fiction about Papal claims on Naples that weren't pushed hard to avoid forcing an issue that the Pope wouldn't win. Nobody wants to call the Pope wrong or a liar if it can be avoided, but if an entire kingdom hangs on it...

But the Papal states themselves are historically as solid as any such things ever are.

Of course, claims are what you make of them. More specious claims have won the day in Glory before and no doubt will again. The point about the law and God being on the side of the biggest army still having a fair bit of validity :D

Deacon wrote:Thanks for the pointer, I should look to the Vatican to see what's available then at some point.

Much of my knowledge is dated. I played another PBM game where canon law and church history played an important role so spent a lot of time on it, but that was more than 20 years ago. I did some more when I played the Pope in game 3, but the issue of canon law never really arose, so I didn't try too hard to find good reference materials on period canon law.

On the forgery, I think there's some misunderstanding.

There is the Donation of Pepin which was the genesis of the Papal States. And then there was the Donation of Constantine which was the forgery. My understanding, echoed here: Papal States History, is that the latter is the basis for Papal Claims upon other parts of Italy like Naples.

I think I mucked the attribution of this earlier, muddling the two but my point about the questionable nature of the Papal claims on Naples stands. In period, it was known that the latter was a forgery and hence there was some polite fiction about Papal claims on Naples that weren't pushed hard to avoid forcing an issue that the Pope wouldn't win. Nobody wants to call the Pope wrong or a liar if it can be avoided, but if an entire kingdom hangs on it...

But the Papal states themselves are historically as solid as any such things ever are.

Of course, claims are what you make of them. More specious claims have won the day in Glory before and no doubt will again. The point about the law and God being on the side of the biggest army still having a fair bit of validity

A nice, accessible summary Deacon

Apols in advance, as part of my "day job" in the past I have been part of a research project into early medieval forgeries of land grants to religious institutions (a follow-on to research into pre-1066 Norman influences in the British Isles...but I digress) and some of that involved the Donation of Constantine. Something that, perhaps surprisingly, isn't mentioned in the links Deacon shared is the meaning behind such forgeries.

In a modern context we see a forgery as a deliberate attempt to deceive, so the person creating it knows they are making it up. In the Early Medieval Period, so when the Donation of Constantine appeared, it was different. Quite often in this period these forgeries were created on a belief that an earlier document had existed but been lost and all the people who created what we call a forgery were doing is recreating a lost document or writing down a verbal agreement form several hundred years ago. Of course I am sure there was a degree of , let's call it, moral laxity in such documents (e.g. the writers lied) but it is worth bearing in mind that the writers of such things as the Declaration of Constantine may not have seen themselves as making it up

Fascinating!

I had no idea that these kind of forgeries weren't just that. I can see the strange logic of it, but not something I'd ever expect.

It's a fascinating area for sure    and few know abut it, well it is a bit of an odd and obscure distinction   The records of north western European religious institutions (for example) are full of such documents.  What I love about it is that people don't think they are actually lying, they are recreating

Thanks Deacon,

a lot has changed in 20 years, but I certainly value your knowledge which at times may well be more rounded than mine and has the advantage of having been tried in the game.  I tend to look into things deeply when I have to, then move on without always joining everything up or documenting sources which is a bad habit and rather frustrating when I have to revisit things.  New sources are being digitized all the time and suddenly appear in search engines if you look deep enough.  A few months ago I found Hughes History of the Church which I have as a 3-volume book, but never expected to find digitized.  It is a great reference work and was created as part of a European project. For some reason I can't post the link here, but if you do a search for on documentacatholicaomnia.eu for /03d/sine-data,_Hughes._Philip,_A_History_Of_The_Curch_To_The_Eve_Of_The_Reformation,_EN.pdf you should find it (the file is misnamed Curch, but it is correct).

It is very comprehensive and particularly useful on the Catholic response to Luther.  Unfortunately it ends at the Reformation, but there are extensive bibliographies in each volume which may help you track down other sources.  After each section there are short chapters on the developments in Catholic thought and philosophy which underpin the history and show the challenges faced by each pope on a spiritual level to complement the history.  It is this approach which is often missing from more modern texts, but which I found invaluable.

Your explanation of the Donations of Pepin/Constantine is helpful.  It does not change my broader point about how Papal lands grew through the donations of families throughout Italy, which is nothing to do with the Donation of Constantine.  Jason's point also has much force - many old documents were lost or destroyed, so what is deemed a 'forgery' today may well have been a recreation of a document which had previously existed in some form.

The difficulty with any who seek to challenge Papal claims on Naples is that those claims were accepted at the time by a succession of rulers any one of whom could (if you are correct) have forced the issue.  It may have been unwise to do so, but that they didn't simply reinforced those Papal claims.  So, for example, if Spain believed he had the true title to rule Naples in its own right, he should have challenged it a few hundred years ago.  But once he accepted that Naples was a Papal Fief, his son was obliged to do the same and so on.  Simply denouncing the donation of Constantine was not legal grounds for reversing centuries of tradition.  I would rather not continue down this line because of an observation I am making this turn, but I think you can understand the line of argument.  Politically you are right - nobody wants to upset the Pope - but legal judgements can only be set aside by evidence, not political arguments.  Without evidence, tradition and established precedent (that Naples is a Papal Fief) stands.

As I think I explained in a game letter to you I reject the notion that the largest army always prevails.  There are plenty of examples throughout history which prove that.  Cromwell's army won against the Royalists in the English Civil War, but after his death the crown came back to the Stuarts.  A large army simply means a territory can be occupied by military force, it does not transfer title to that territory.  Otherwise Germany's Blitzkrieg would have achieved permanent results and all those countries which rejoiced when they were liberated made the wrong choice.  And perhaps more pertinently, if France continues to march into any country smaller than herself without resistance, G10 will hardly be a game at all - no glorious French victories, just a disorderly assortment of players who hoped to get on with each other and build their nations, denied the chance to do so.  Makes no difference to me - I'll still be Pope - but it is a rather poor advert for the game which thrives when smaller nations are played.

I look forward to receiving your reply to my latest game letter.

Advantage of Asia time is I wake up to read a full course of a debate in sequence.
Fascinating. I have been quite chuffed at times with my level of research, but this sets a whole new bar. Note to myself, must try harder.
A more formal welcome to Papa Clement.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of acceptance of Papal claims on Naples.

In game, the Spanish throne has normally offered a pittance to the Pope, like 5k gold a year for Naples. That is a fig leaf if ever there was one.

If the Pope insisted that he was going to take it over and rule it directly, I don't think that fig leaf would survive the conversation that followed. Additionally, that would be a purely secular dispute so the Pope wouldn't technically be able to use church powers to attempt to resolve the issue.

Of course, of such differences of opinion are great games (and wars) made!

Thanks Kerensky,

I hope these posts have been helpful.

Deacon - difficult to answer your comments about the fiefs without trespassing on matters which are best left to the game, so I will refer you back to my latest newspaper articles.  If you look back before I joined then you will also find that it was stated on more than one occasion that the Pope would take the fiefs back under his direct rule and Spain made no objection.  This may be something which in real life would have been more problematic, but seems to be acceptable in the game.  As you know not all Popes were the best administrators of the lands in their charge, so perhaps my character has a particular gift in extracting value where others failed.

To be clear, I am speaking only theoretically and historically about Papal claims to Naples. I'm not addressing anything in any particular game.

My opinions here on the forum, and those held by my characters in game, can differ a fair bit!