G7 - France vs. England

Historically the Papacy, Malta, Spain and France all refused to recognise William as King of England and on the death of James II (1701) recognised his son James as the legitimate heir to the English crown. By the Treaty of Ryswick Louis promised not to support James II, but that promise did not extend to his heirs. Louis had a strong belief in the hereditary principle.

In the game things are a bit more complicated. I received a letter from the Jacobites in 1701 and following an exchange of letters with the Pope, I agreed to support him. This was partly to follow history, partly because I thought it would be popular and partly because I expected it to lead to closer co-operation between France and Spain. The Treaty of Ghent had just been signed and we seemed to have reached an understanding about how to move forward peacefully in Europe. I consider Spain to be the most able player in the game and a natural ally of France. Unfortunately, Spain refused to back the Jacobites and condemned them as pirates when they started attacking English ships (not unreasonable for Jacobites to attack Williamites). France enjoyed strong Papal support at this time which culminated in the transfer of Ancona to France in exchange for various military/diplomatic/trade concessions. Ancona is a strategic base from which I could attack Austria if the need arose as well as protect the Papacy from an Ottoman attack. From this point on Spain saw the Papacy as a threat and through astute diplomacy and bribes now holds the Curia (cardinals who advise the pope) in his hand. It was Spanish influence over the Curia which prevented the Pope from following Canon Law and excommunicating Leopold following his attack on France. The Curia have spoken out against France's war against England, claiming that the Pope does not back King James. This is not only historically innaccurate, but against what the Pope declared during the negotiations over Ancona. I have publicly challenged this and stated that until the Pope recognises William (the heretic) as the rightful King, France will continue to follow what always has been Papal guidelines for all Catholics and back the Jacobites. The Pope himself remains silent, scared to speak out against his own Curia, but will not back William.

Consequently, although it is an interesting idea, The Papacy (Pope or Curia) would not be an acceptable mediator for France.

Interesting game history! Thanks for sharing.

Though I'm not sure I'd share your reading of Canon law. On what basis should Leopold be excommunicated? Attacking another Catholic nation is not a valid reason for excommunication as far as my knowledge of Canon Law, though I admit it has been some years since I've read Canon Law in detail.

No problem Deacon ... glad of the opportunity to set the record straight.

If you are a trained Deacon in the Roman Catholic Church then your knowledge of this may be greater than mine. However, assuming you have some Catholic legal training, you will be aware that Canon Law in the Catholic Church is full of inconsistencies and holes; it isn’t interpreted like ordinary common law or statute law, and its application changed over time. There are very few types of excommunication still valid, but in 1700 things were different. There are several kinds of excommunication itself and it was used as a means of enforcing Papal will on rebellious bishops (mainly) along with a wide range of other penalties. There were abuses in the Middle Ages (excommunication for non observance of fasting laws is one that is rather topical at the moment, as Friday fasting obligations are now being reintroduced in the UK, just to really upset those who don't like the new translation of the missal) which led to a softening of the line at the Council of Trent. As far as I can establish Trent was the last major reform which affected excommunication.

Excommunication, as you are aware, is not necessarily damnation for all time, it could mean some form of ban on civil relations (e.g. prayer in common with other Christians, or eating common meals), or removal of the right to receive the sacraments. Other Catholics would shun the excommunicant which would make it very hard for Leopold to rule on a day to day basis until he repented and was absolved. This would be highly unlikely to happen whilst he still insisted on attacking a fellow Catholic nation.

Excommunication is the penalty for ‘very grievous offences detrimental to Christian society’. So it covers such things as physical attacks on the clergy, appropriation of church property, etc. There is a proportionate element to be considered, but unfortunately for Leopold this means those who lead society have a greater burden placed on them. So breaking a peace treaty with another Catholic nation (France) and attacking it (ordering other Catholics in the army to kill French Catholics) is clearly within the scope of a ‘grievous offence detrimental to Christian society’. Establishing jurisdiction (which bishop should excommunicate someone of such high rank) is far more difficult to figure out, but if the local bishop couldn't do it, the Pope could.

Leopold may have been excommunicated and paid several million pounds to the church to atone for his crime, but if this happened then it didn’t hit the newspapers which somehow I think it should have done.

I hope this helps clarify.

There goes the Pope as a negotiator Have to say I still like the idea of Court Agema but would also accept Russia and Spain discussing it and agreeing the matter between themselves. Obviously, they would have to be writen to"in game". But it seems like a fair suggestion by me. Both well respected and both in with a foot in the two camps, but I would suggest the same issue as as applies to Richard/Court Agema-submissions should be limited in scope to a 150 words at most.
Needless to say I dont think Leopold should have been excomunicated, and not suprisingly, he wasnt
I trust I havent stepped over the line with that proposal

I'm not a roman catholic, but I played one in a previous PBM game (delenda est carthago for old time english PBMers) and have a copy of Canon law (current obviously) and read a fair bit on earlier canon law, though not specifically of this period.

So take what I know with a grain of salt.

There are two types of excommunication. Latae Sententiae and Ferendae Sententiae.

The first category is 'automatic' excommunications. You do something and the very act of doing it excommunicates you. The church can acknowledge the excommunication, but it doesn't have to try you or lay the excommunication on you. The act itself does it. These type of excommunications tend to be straightforward cases of clerical insubordination, attacking the pope and the like.

The second category are the imposed excommunications for violation of canon law, and require a legitimate legal authority to formally lay them down, typically with at least some resort to a canon court.

Since breaching a treaty and attacking a fellow catholic isn't a Latae Sententiae crime, it would require a proper authority to excommunicate him, of which there are only 2, The Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna seated at St. Stephen's cathedral in Vienna could, or His Holiness the pope could. (You could perhaps muddy the waters with a bishop from one of his holdings trying to assert that authority, but I don't think it would fly. You need his bishop (vienna) or up the chain of command there (which is only one up to the pope).

Breaching a treaty and attacking a fellow catholic could perhaps be argued is a grave offense against the church, but equally you could argue it has absolutely nothing to do with the church as no church property, churchmen, or theology is at debate here.

I would personally think this falls into the "sins you ought to confess" category and not into excommunication territory and I can't think of a historical precedent for excommunicating a king for making war on a fellow catholic.

If I were the pope, I would want to be on rock solid ground on this, because a politically motivated excommunication would really damage the authority of the church. Further, to excommunicate a reigning monarch is a very drastic step for Rome. Telling Henry VIII to bugger off didn't go so well

So while you may not be happy that leopold hasn't been excommunicated, I don't think there is much precedent for it and Rome would be really stepping out to do it.

Of course, if you spend more with the Curia than the Spanish, who knows? The Italians are still italian and never met a bribe they didn't like!

I would suggest either Agema Court or a position far removed from the sphere of events.

I offer my own position for an unbiased and fair judgement. Russia is an ally of France and Spain has always been particularly anti-French in her communications with me in all the positions I've played in G7.

Basilieus : both the Court Agema idea and the Spanish/Russian idea are steps forward to peace. I know from our private discussions you have ideas of your own which might move peace forward. Do I have your permission to share these ideas with Louis? Will you now write to Louis in the game?

Louis : I really think you should be prepared to look seriously at what is proposed.

Deacon - your comments are interesting, particularly in respect of jurisdiction which was the one part I was a bit shakey on. Overall though I think you are interpretting Canon Law as if it was common law, which if you read the preface to your Canon Law book is clearly not how it is interpretted or used.

If the Pope wanted to excommunicate Leopold for this he could have done, though as we both point out it would have been more likely that one of the lesser forms would have been used because of the political consequences. Even the threat of excommunication was usually enough to force a ruler to change his mind.

Theologically if a Catholic is not in a state of grace (i.e. has sins he needs to confess) then he should not receive communion anyway, so is 'excommunicated' in a sacramental sense, although this is down to his own conscience. And of course there can be no valid sacrament of reconciliation unless there is genuine repentance and Leopold completed whatever act of penance was required. He clearly has not repented whilst he is still attacking France.

Latae Sententiae was abolished in 1869.

The legal test is not if the offence is 'against the Church', but is it 'against Christian society'.

Clearly the Pope would have annoyed Leopold no end had he excommunicated him and it would have taken a brave Pope to have carried this through.

France does not bribe Cardinals.

++++++++

Ed - at the risk of upsetting you, if Basilieus wants peace then he should write his own peace terms and present them in the usual way, within the game. Of course that would mean he has to write to me!

I have already stated my position in public and repeated it here.

France rejected both the Spanish and the Russian proposals for reasons described in the Herald. In a nutshell, the Spanish proposals were unenforceable given what has happened on the ground, there were no penalties against Austria and the transfer of Ancona meant a net loss to France of £5M. The Russian proposals were more reasonable, but still lacking in key areas. There was a great deal of common ground in these proposals and I published a clause-by-clause breakdown of what was acceptable.

I don't think Spain and Russia will agree anything unless it is based on those proposals which France has already rejected.

England has already pleaded guilty and just won't settle. By her own admission Austria broke her treaty with France and is also therefore guilty. 150 words is more than enough for Austria to acknowledge her guilt, but it is hardly enough for France to state what is required for Austria to atone for her guilt. By continuing the wars England and Austria are simply evading justice. The old rules of 1 side of A4 are good enough for me.

No, Latae Sententaie exists even today. And I'm aware of the differences in canon law and common law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

My point is Leopold's actions aren't a clear cut violation and in fact I can think of none nor find any precedent for excommunicating a monarch for breaching a peace. It simply isn't an injury to the body of the church. Can anybody else think of a historical example of a royal excommunication for attacking a fellow catholic? I can't, and I can't find one with Google.

Deacon - I'm not trying to start an argument here. If you have greater professional knowledge of this area than I then so be it. This was a question about game history which I answered.

I never trust wikipedia. I prefer to go back to source documents or more reliably edited publications. The Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to the Bull Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi which deals specifically with these points. This bull simplified existing categories of excommunication which according to the article were recognised to be unclear. As a result of this reclassification Latae Sententiae was abolished. The article on Excommunication itself is also very interesting as background.

My game history point was very simple. If one Catholic nation attacks another then it would be expected that the Pope would make some public comment and censure the aggressor. This did not happen in the game for the reasons I have stated (unless others know better). The absense of comment cannot be used to suggest that the Pope supports an act of violence against a fellow Catholic monarch. If the aggressor refused to acknowledge Papal wishes then clearly some further penalty would be imposed. The reason historical examples are hard to find is that the mere threat of excommunication was usually sufficient for rulers to accept they had done wrong. There are plenty of examples of bishops dissuading Kings and other nobles of violent acts against fellow Catholics by the threat of excommunication, or indeed by excommunication itself.

As a separate point, I am conscious that each time I post a reply or another contributor makes a supportive comment someone else downgrades the responses. It appears that The Real King Louis is no more welcome on this forum than he is in LGDR7. I only joined the forum 2 days ago!

I think I'm debating, not arguing. As I've said, I don't play game 7 so my comments are purely of academic interest.

I don't disagree that the pope might well speak against war between catholic nations, particularly if one has breached a treaty.

But that is a pastoral statement and not an actual excommunication, for which I can find no real-world historical precedent.

If your facts are correct, then I can see why in game 7 the pope hasn't even used his moral authority to try to resolve the matter, as he normally might.

As for your reputation, look at my number of posts, and nobody likes me!

RL - not one to argue but Wikipedia is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica!

Also you are very welcome here and I'm glad you have joined the forum it certainly adds to the discussions.

You all have me at a disadvantage and know far more about the real 18 Cent than me. However I think we want to keep this stuff pretty general and not personal - though its hard not to bring your character and your own perceptions to the forum.

I think everyone will be glad you are bringing your knowledge and experience to the conversation and I hope to see your comments on many other strands! Please don't be put off as this argument you have jumped into the middle of was simmering furiously already.

And before I finish I was accused of being YOU a couple of days ago.

Jason wrote:Random thought...would the Pope be overly pro-Stuart? Yes, the Stuarts are Catholic but will be indebted to France...might a Pope be fearful of an overly powerful France and try and limit their power a bit?

As an aside, I think any pope would be delirious at the thought of a Catholic king back in England. Politics makes strange bedfellows and all that, but winning back England to the Roman Catholic Church would just be such a huge win that I tend to agree with France's player that it is strange that he isn't being backed on this score, and why the pope isn't questioning spain and austria on why they are trying to prevent the rightful, and catholic, ruler from taking his throne.

From the introduction to Canon Law on the vatican website. You made me curious if I was incorrect about Latae Sententiae. It does, in fact, still exist, but is more limited these days. Not that this really has much to do (ok, anything really) with game 7, but it interests me.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM

9. As an external, visible and independent society, the Church cannot renounce penal law. However, penalties are generally to be ferendae sententiae and are to be inflicted and remitted only in the external forum. Latae sententiae penalties are to be reduced to a few cases and are to be inflicted only for the most serious offenses.

Deacon - thank you for your comments. Good debate. I'm not going to argue with the Vatican website - clearly a more authoritative source that I relied upon. I agree, it is interesting. It is one of the things I really enjoy about this game - the odd historical corners it throws up. I do like these kind of discussions
On the substantive (game) point we seem to be in agreement. About a game year ago I was very concerned about the English people rejecting James on the grounds he was Catholic and would want to force conversion of the country at gunpoint. One of France's peace terms required the removal of anti-Catholic laws in England and freedom of worship. From his actions in the game James is a realist and although he would dearly like to convert England, he recognises that is only going to happen over a long period of time when the people are ready for it. It is interesting that as he tours around his Kingdom and more people get to meet him, their fear of him vanishes. Meanwhile it should be a source of joy for the Pope and all Catholics if England gained a Catholic monarch.

Regor - thanks for the welcome. I'm sorry you were accused of being me (I know you're not the only one!)

I've been suspiciously monitoring this forum for a year or so now. I've let most of the anti-France comments go, as I expected that if I joined I would be pounced on. Some of the more extreme comments against France have been challenged by other contributors, but many false claims about France and LGDR7 are still being repeated.

I play the game in a very simple and straight-forward way: I write rather long letters discussing game issues or articles for the Herald; I tell people exactly what I am going to do and do it. There is nothing more infuriating for some players than honesty. I don't know who you are in the game and please don't tell me, but if I do write to you regularly, then you know all this.

My understanding of forum use is that it is OK to quote from the Herald as this clearly does not add anything which is not already available to all participants in the game. I will push hard to correct deliberate anti-French statements where they can be backed up in this way. Much of what I have to say will be new to the forum and should bring balance to the debates. I have been in LGDR7 from the start and obviously can answer questions on game history as they apply to France. Outside of this I don't think I have any great knowledge of the game which others do not also share.

If players want to write to me then they should do so in game. I always reply, though I have been having a few email problems lately so some letters may have been delayed. If you have written to me and still not received a reply, then please let me know.

I hope these comments will clarify things for other players/contributors. I'm sure if I overstep the mark the forum moderators will guide me appropriately.

Yes, while I don't think there's a case for excommunicating Leopold, I do think that you should have gotten strong Papal support for putting a Catholic on the English Throne.

Hi Deacon - Delenda Est Carthago was very good, it used to be my favorite at one time. I even GMd one summer back in about 1988 I think. I played as the ap Gruffyd's, a Welsh lot up in the hills, strangely I am exiled to rural Welsh hills these days during the working week and having to learn Welsh as part of the job. Clearly some sort of irony taking place.

I remember your position. I was the american playing the Knights Hospitallers. It was a bit later than '88 as I recall, but it's all the fog of history for me now. Still correspond with Judith intermittently. Glad to hear some other old timers are around.

Deacon - what happened in the end to Delenda? I had to drop my position when I GMd and never picked it back up again. How is Judith?

Well, but she had to give up GMing with back and hand issues. Well, though, last I saw her.

I ended up dropping myself after a number of years. I don't know exactly how it ended.

A general warning from Agema. We are aware as moderators that certain persons have been using the forums' private messaging system to carry out what is very clearly in-game diplomacy. Where this turns out to be the case then in-game your honour score will take a hit. This may seem harsh but the we've already stated on the forum the rules of engagement and if players break the spirit of those rules they can't plead ignorance.

Uhm, to put it another way, you can read this so you now know that not only you know but that we know as well so pack it in!

... Please.

A very interesting turn I'm sure you'll agree?

Anything in particular? Seems the newspaper isn't up on the wiki.

A few highlights;

Doesn't look like there will be a truce;

Russian Forces have landed;

The HRE has closed their lands to France;

China has 'awoken'

Big step towards a Bill of Rights in the English Americas

I wonder, looking in from the outside, if this game is heading towards a situation similar to Game 3? A restored Jacobite monarchy in London and a Williamite monarchy in exile in the American colonies?