@edgarblythe,
It is not at all obvious ed.
Unless you mean that they should either answer the question I asked, which you don't, or else pipe down.
When we discuss a political elite operating in another time and place we need, if we are to be taken seriously, to analyze the inner workings of it and ask whether or not it answered the practical needs of the society in which it existed. That is what history is about and not what it "ought to" have been about or what those elites should have done.
When we estimate the policies and institutions of other times and places on the basis of our own opinion of the role they "ought to" have played we are no longer engaged with history at all. We are up to no good not to put to fine a point on it and I know what we are up to when we do it. If it is the Church being discussed it is almost a certainty that what we are up to is undermining the Christian teaching on sexual matters for personal justification.
The reading of values into historical analysis is extremely prone to deception, including self-deception, when the values of the present time and place are made the basis for the selection of materials which are then judged in the light of those present values.
The absence of any historical perspective in this regard is compounded when the evidence for the materials selected is very likely to be drawn from sources guilty of the same error and for the same reasons.