This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In preparation for the currently ongoing papal conclave, I decided to read the official rules currently in force, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, issued by John Paul II in 1996. The document contains this provision (emphasis added):
Seems simple enough right?
Whoops.
Here I was, a schmuck, reading the canonically promulgated apostolic constitution as if it mattered, as if the supposed men of God involved in this 2000-year-old institution might care about established procedures.
Sure, Francis could have changed the rules, as many popes have done throughout the centuries, but he didn’t. He either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and neither did anyone else with influence within the Vatican either. How am I supposed to take this seriously if the cardinals and popes don’t even take it seriously?
I wish Christianity were true. I really do. It would certainly make my dating life easier. I’d have a sense of purpose in life, defined rules of virtue to follow, but it just doesn’t make any actual sense. The inconsistency I cited above is relatively minor, but it is illustrative of what one finds everywhere when one digs into the claims of Christianity and treats them with the truth-preserving tools of logic. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II, Matthew 24:34, these are fundamental truth claims that can’t be handwaved away like the finer points of ecclesiastical law.
If only the College of Cardinals had addressed this...
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/this-is-first-conclave-held-with-number-exceeding-120-electors.html
In the absence of a pope the College of Cardinals functions as a senate, although the legislation will need to be confirmed by a future pontiff.
Tomorrow or Friday the chimney will emit white smoke. The new pope will, after receiving homage from the cardinals, emerge from the room of tears and the protodeacon shall from the balcony overlooking the Vatican intone 'Habemus papam...' before the new pope shows himself to bless the crowd, the city of Rome, and the whole world. After this he will immediately confirm as valid legislation the decree of the College of Cardinals on this matter. All this has happened before, and it will happen again; the grand pageantry of tradition goes on and the everchanging world is transfixed.
I am reminded, when the queen of England died. A lunchlady- and this was in rural Texas, mind you- was distraught by the news. I did something to her walk in, she complained that, being a lunchlady, she would be unable to see the whole of the royal funeral, for it started at four AM and she needed to be at work at six- in the midst of mourning somebody else's queen. People care about the activities of legitimacy. The commoners cry out for a king. That's why the secular news livestreamed the chimney on the conclave hours before it would give any news, and on a day when there would inevitably be black smoke to boot. The commoners long for a ritual weight to legitimize the rulers, even if it isn't their rulers, unchanging tradition which says 'it's ok, we're still here, the world goes on'.
I've written before about Trump as the king of the red tribe. There's a lot of truth to that; he spun a narrative and then he goes and engages in the actions associated with authority. He pardons. He personally signs- Biden's autopen was a big deal for legitimacy reasons. He negotiates with foreign powers. He legislates- and his supporters are OK with that because he takes ritual, legitimating action. It says 'I am the king' and people believe it. The commoners have always loved the king. It's the way it is.
But back to the pope- papal legitimacy is not based on a valid election. It's based on universal recognition from the bishops and cardinals. The conclave is just a procedure to put forth a pope which the bishops and cardinals will recognize. Past conclaves have done some crazy things, but irregularities in the conclave can't upend papal legitimacy. What can is lack of assent from the bishops. And that was a serious and coming danger with the former pope Francis; the thesis that Benedict's resignation was invalid and thus pope Francis wasn't validly elected had become alarmingly popular from a stability perspective, and among alarmingly centrist clergy. It was only a matter of time until the cordon sanitaire broke and the bishops had to convene a council which would inevitably depose pope Francis- after all, he was unable to avert it. There'd been a respected, establishment-oriented priest excommunicated about once a week for it for the last few months of his reign. The growing popularity of the idea was probably why bishop Strickland was dealt with so harshly- you can't risk a serving bishop breaking for that. Electing a pope who can quell that is a top priority in the Sistine chapel right now, just as it was in 1978. John Paul II was able to convince the world's serving bishops not to join with radical theologians holding that the papacy had deposed itself, and their need to rely for ordinations on the senile brother of the former Vietnamese president who had been forced to retire from his episcopacy in Vietnam after his brother's assassination is why Sedevacantism is now a fringe movement of mostly actual literal cults in the sense of, like, compounds and identical clothing. No doubt, the trappings of legitimacy were an important part of the matter.
Any update on predictions? Who are your current top three?
I would say that if a pope is elected tomorrow afternoon it’s probably one of the four of Avelline, Pizzaballa, Erdo, or Parolin(like 60% sure there’s more than 45 cardinals dead set opposed to him but only 60%). On Friday I’d add Ambongo and Mamberti. Of course the three dinosaurs that were in JPII’s inner circle and just stayed in important Vatican roles are always possible.
If it goes longer than that, it’s anyone’s game, but it’s probably someone very old, because papabile settling for a compromise candidate want another shot at the top job.
If it's Pizzaballa, I really hope he picks the name John for shits and giggles.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it fair to say that while Pizzaballa looks like perhaps the most logical candidate from an idealogical (mild conservative) and experience perspective (ie a diplomat with experience in the middle east) the fact that he's only 60 may be disqualifying for too many cardinals for him to have an actual chance at being elected?
Yes
More options
Context Copy link
There are two sides to this one:
Last time a 'placeholder' pope was picked to kick the (pizza)ball to the next conclave, it was John 23 who called Vatican 2 and was perhaps the most consequential pope of the last 500 or so years
Last time a 'young' pope was picked to try to Shephard the Church it was John Paul II which, like, does anyone really complain about him? Point in favor of Pizzaballa
NB I am rooting for Pizzaballa, I don't even quite know why, just what I'm feeling called to
I'd love one of the African cardinals but to be honest, they're too old and too conservative for the views of what's needed. I have no idea who's going to get it, an Italian after the run of non-Italian popes may well be on the cards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link