Would definitely vote for that guy if I could. On the other hand, buying "no" has a 6 cent return by end of year which is roughly 10 months away. Thats near 8% annualized if you hold to maturity: (1+(6/94))^(12/10)-1, better than a T-bill right now.
I do wonder what would happen if some cardinal already named John or Gregory or some other indisputably papal name got elected. Would he keep his name?
Worth remembering "lottery" also derives from Genoa's "lotto", which was betting on public elections were 5 members of the Great Council were drawn out of a 90 candidates pool.
I've probably seen a dozen movies and TV shows about various conclaves. This movie seemed like a well-made and perfectly normal movie about the subject... with a couple lines tacked on at the very end in a grasping attempt to seem edgy.
Jude Law's The Young Pope or even Jeremy Iron's The Borgias covered the subject better imho.
The point of Conclave isn't to demonstrate how the cardinals vote and the pope picking process. It's to analyze and dwell on how people are treated and viewed. What makes you trust and distrust someone who hasn't been entirely honest with you? The ending twist isn't to be edgy it's to bring up a topic that many Catholics need to deal with relative to the trust thesis of the movie.
Movies do have a point. Sure art has a “eye of the beholder” view-point but most art has intention the artist is trying to covey. People don’t just make a movie and say “hey what if we tack this wild ending on to it, that would really confuse people”.
The artist having an intention when creating the art doesn't mean the purpose of the beholder is to find out that intention, or to "get the point". You're mixing stuff up.
It’s also not-not the intention. So my claim that it is the point of the film is still valid, whether you think I’m “mixed up” about perceiving art or not.
Eh, it’s a twist that panders to yesterday’s culture warriors. People who enjoy having their own worldview affirmed and then making others “deal with” that worldview.
Lol it’s not pandering to anyone. It’s making a point that’s timely and the fact that you are finding way to attempt to disregard it or try and disqualify it as a valid point means that the ending does a great job. This is the era you live in whether you shrug everyone off as “culture warriors” or not.
Would you have wanted the ending to be the pope to be elected and everyone hugging and waving goodbye as the camera ascends to the heavens, where God then turns and winks at the audience? Or do you want something to talk about that has an effective tie to the theme of the film.
Watch a documentary if you want an accurate description of the papal voting process.
I don’t think it was edgy at the end. It left it extremely morally ambiguous on behalf of the protagonist rather than making him too saintly. It was left unclear how he felt about the ending
It’s also widely considered by Catholics to be seriously inaccurate; and the subject matter has been settled for centuries.
Basically, it’s about as historically and religiously accurate as Gladiator or Braveheart. Take that how you will. I say this as somebody who liked Gladiator, but know better than to take anything in it seriously (even basic things, like the “thumbs up” to allow life, is inaccurate).
To be fair, the question of whether it’s historically accurate is irrelevant because the film obviously doesn’t depict real events with real cardinals… even to the viewer who knows nothing about who is who in the real-life Catholic hierarchy, the terrorist event that triggers a major plot twist should be a big clue that this is a fictional thriller, not a documentary. Apart from that, the setting is contemporary so history has nothing to do with it.
So it’s a gossipy political thriller where the setting is the Vatican, not the White House or the House of Lords. The question remains: is it a reasonably faithful depiction of the way a real papal conclave operates, in both procedure and the negotiation/clique-forming/decision-making process? Catholic friends of mine who know much more than I do about what goes on in Rome actually have the opposite fear: that it is all too realistic and exposes too much about the power games that go on instead of earnestly seeking the good of the faith, and of the faithful. If that’s the case, then in the long run it can only be good because, as Christ Himself said: “you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
Edit: to be fair, there are some flashbacks in the film to historical events taking place in Latin America, IIRC these are also fictionalized but yeah, I could imagine someone who knows the history of that particular situation being able to say that it's innacurately depicted; however that's not the key theme of the film's narrative, which is a contemporary papal election. By contrast the film "The Two Popes" does deserve the historically-inaccurate tag, because it depicts a meeting between two real-life people which definitely never happened and is purely the imagination of the playwright who asked himself "what if?" In that case, I do wish that the film would preface itself by making it clear that it is purely a flight of fancy in order to explore ideas around faith, theology and succession because I'm sure a lot of people really do believe that Francis did have private conversations with Benedikt and received his endorsement.
> He consulted Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as part of his research for the book. He later gave Murphy-O'Connor a copy of the novel, and to his surprise, Murphy-O'Connor sent a letter praising its accuracy.
“Gregory XIV's bull of excommunication as a penalty for such wagers was never specifically rescinded, but was abrogated along with all canon law provisions associated with the Ius Decretalium in 1918.”
While technically speaking it doesn’t take a bull to be a mortal sin, discretion and a well formed conscience matters here. There’s also a huge difference between $10 among friends, and $20,000 among cardinals or princes. The original prohibition was most likely to prevent the latter.
I'm not catholic but I don't think that's necessary in their framework, no. An action driving you further from god is a sin even if you can't articulate a material harm caused by it.
I suppose the logic is something like "creating and holding the kind of cynical distance from momentous world events that would allow you to gamble on them weakens your connection to god's creation and therefor god himself."
Still Alive and Well: https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-be-the-next-pope?tid=1...
Surely the hopes for Pope Pizzaballa is in part because of his name?
I will remember Pizzaballa forever for two reasons:
1. Great name. 2. After October 7, he offered to trade himself for Hamas's hostages. [1]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/jerusalem-catholic...
Would definitely vote for that guy if I could. On the other hand, buying "no" has a 6 cent return by end of year which is roughly 10 months away. Thats near 8% annualized if you hold to maturity: (1+(6/94))^(12/10)-1, better than a T-bill right now.
Surely. But popes are called by their first name, and almost always a first name they choose, so there won't actually be a Pope Pizzaballa.
He could be! Popes pick their new names, after all. But yeah, he'd probably pick "Innocent" or something less amusing.
I do wonder what would happen if some cardinal already named John or Gregory or some other indisputably papal name got elected. Would he keep his name?
He might be seen as presumptuous for already having a pope name and get sunk in the Vatican politics.
Worth remembering "lottery" also derives from Genoa's "lotto", which was betting on public elections were 5 members of the Great Council were drawn out of a 90 candidates pool.
Do you have any source? I did not not find any reference to Genoa in dfferent dictionaries (in English and Italian).
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=lottery
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lottery
https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/lotteria/?search=lotter%...
https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/lotto/?search=l%C3%B2tto...
sorry for being misleading! I didn't mean the word, but the actual gambling game which became popular in Genoa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery#Medieval_history
EDIT: I notice wikipedia is unsourced too, but Britannica mentions it
https://www.britannica.com/topic/lottery
If anyone hasn’t seen Conclave I really recommend it. It seems so boring, but my girlfriend and I were fascinated the whole movie.
I've probably seen a dozen movies and TV shows about various conclaves. This movie seemed like a well-made and perfectly normal movie about the subject... with a couple lines tacked on at the very end in a grasping attempt to seem edgy.
Jude Law's The Young Pope or even Jeremy Iron's The Borgias covered the subject better imho.
The point of Conclave isn't to demonstrate how the cardinals vote and the pope picking process. It's to analyze and dwell on how people are treated and viewed. What makes you trust and distrust someone who hasn't been entirely honest with you? The ending twist isn't to be edgy it's to bring up a topic that many Catholics need to deal with relative to the trust thesis of the movie.
The point is whatever you make of it. Movies (art in general) don't have a "point" that you need to get right.
Movies do have a point. Sure art has a “eye of the beholder” view-point but most art has intention the artist is trying to covey. People don’t just make a movie and say “hey what if we tack this wild ending on to it, that would really confuse people”.
The artist having an intention when creating the art doesn't mean the purpose of the beholder is to find out that intention, or to "get the point". You're mixing stuff up.
It’s also not-not the intention. So my claim that it is the point of the film is still valid, whether you think I’m “mixed up” about perceiving art or not.
Eh, it’s a twist that panders to yesterday’s culture warriors. People who enjoy having their own worldview affirmed and then making others “deal with” that worldview.
You're aware it's based on a book ~10 years old?
Don't let the facts get in the way of him affirming his own worldview!
Lol it’s not pandering to anyone. It’s making a point that’s timely and the fact that you are finding way to attempt to disregard it or try and disqualify it as a valid point means that the ending does a great job. This is the era you live in whether you shrug everyone off as “culture warriors” or not.
Would you have wanted the ending to be the pope to be elected and everyone hugging and waving goodbye as the camera ascends to the heavens, where God then turns and winks at the audience? Or do you want something to talk about that has an effective tie to the theme of the film.
Watch a documentary if you want an accurate description of the papal voting process.
I don’t think it was edgy at the end. It left it extremely morally ambiguous on behalf of the protagonist rather than making him too saintly. It was left unclear how he felt about the ending
It’s also widely considered by Catholics to be seriously inaccurate; and the subject matter has been settled for centuries.
Basically, it’s about as historically and religiously accurate as Gladiator or Braveheart. Take that how you will. I say this as somebody who liked Gladiator, but know better than to take anything in it seriously (even basic things, like the “thumbs up” to allow life, is inaccurate).
It's very obviously fictional.
I think that most people who watched it will assume it’s well researched
To be fair, the question of whether it’s historically accurate is irrelevant because the film obviously doesn’t depict real events with real cardinals… even to the viewer who knows nothing about who is who in the real-life Catholic hierarchy, the terrorist event that triggers a major plot twist should be a big clue that this is a fictional thriller, not a documentary. Apart from that, the setting is contemporary so history has nothing to do with it.
So it’s a gossipy political thriller where the setting is the Vatican, not the White House or the House of Lords. The question remains: is it a reasonably faithful depiction of the way a real papal conclave operates, in both procedure and the negotiation/clique-forming/decision-making process? Catholic friends of mine who know much more than I do about what goes on in Rome actually have the opposite fear: that it is all too realistic and exposes too much about the power games that go on instead of earnestly seeking the good of the faith, and of the faithful. If that’s the case, then in the long run it can only be good because, as Christ Himself said: “you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
Edit: to be fair, there are some flashbacks in the film to historical events taking place in Latin America, IIRC these are also fictionalized but yeah, I could imagine someone who knows the history of that particular situation being able to say that it's innacurately depicted; however that's not the key theme of the film's narrative, which is a contemporary papal election. By contrast the film "The Two Popes" does deserve the historically-inaccurate tag, because it depicts a meeting between two real-life people which definitely never happened and is purely the imagination of the playwright who asked himself "what if?" In that case, I do wish that the film would preface itself by making it clear that it is purely a flight of fancy in order to explore ideas around faith, theology and succession because I'm sure a lot of people really do believe that Francis did have private conversations with Benedikt and received his endorsement.
You sure about that?
> He consulted Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as part of his research for the book. He later gave Murphy-O'Connor a copy of the novel, and to his surprise, Murphy-O'Connor sent a letter praising its accuracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclave_(novel)
The Cardinal was the Archbishop of Westminster and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales so I think he would know.
I remember The Bugle podcast doing a bit about this back in 2013. Didn’t realize this was an actual thing.
A papal conclave could be understood as a contest led by votes making it illegal.
Illegal in which jurisdiction? The Vatican is an independent sovereign state so whatever laws you think apply are unlikely to be in force there.
What do you mean? Wouldn't this reasoning make any election illegal?
Gambling on a contest
It's illegal to gamble on a contest? Where?
Seems like it should be a mortal sin or something.
Also - the "Doge of Venice" ? What are the odds.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/betting-on-the...
“Gregory XIV's bull of excommunication as a penalty for such wagers was never specifically rescinded, but was abrogated along with all canon law provisions associated with the Ius Decretalium in 1918.”
While technically speaking it doesn’t take a bull to be a mortal sin, discretion and a well formed conscience matters here. There’s also a huge difference between $10 among friends, and $20,000 among cardinals or princes. The original prohibition was most likely to prevent the latter.
>mortal sin
for that shouldn't it be damaging to somebody or to your own soul? How would betting damage your soul?
I'm not catholic but I don't think that's necessary in their framework, no. An action driving you further from god is a sin even if you can't articulate a material harm caused by it.
I suppose the logic is something like "creating and holding the kind of cynical distance from momentous world events that would allow you to gamble on them weakens your connection to god's creation and therefor god himself."