[count-your-change]

You were ambiguous about whether indulgences were a good or bad thing but offered that if given the act of offering indicated an encouragement to Bible reading.
Whether that is the result I can't and couldn't say.

And you suggest further that a capacity for abuse does not render them a bad thing.

My comment was concerning their history, that of abuse renders them a bad thing. and the position of the Catholic church toward the Scriptures as quoted, shows what conclusion might be drawn about encouragement of Bible reading.

In short, indulgences have always been an example of moral and spiritual rot and handing out rot for a good purpose does not change the practice into something else.

[Judith Anne]

In short, indulgences have always been an example of moral and spiritual rot and handing out rot for a good purpose does not change the practice into something else.

Oh, really? So, does the Catholic Church think Bible reading is a good thing, or not? Obviously, since there are three Bible readings in every mass, every day, it does. Obviously, since indulgences are granted for Bible reading, it is considered good. What you think of indulgences is unimportant except between you and whatever idol you worship.

[Mad Dawg]

This is not as hard nor as good an opportunity for potshots as you want it to be.

IF I think that trinket A is a desirable thing, a thing YOU want,
AND IF I tell you,

IF you do activity X,
THEN I will give you trinket A.

THEN I am not discouraging you from doing Activity X.

...but offered that if given the act of offering indicated an encouragement to Bible reading.
Whether that is the result I can't and couldn't say.

Who knows what the actual result was. The question is: what was the expected result, and specifically was the expected result consistent with the charge that the Catholic Church discourages Bible reading?

and the position of the Catholic church toward the Scriptures as quoted, shows what conclusion might be drawn about encouragement of Bible reading.

No. I might think that drinking Wild Turkey is good for longevity. You might think it is good for longevity AND has aphrodisiac properties. The difference in our thinking about HOW it is good, does not mean that we don't both think it's good.

You all think what you think about the Bible. We think what we think. We both think it's good to read the Bible.

The charge was NOT that we don't hold the same opinion of the Bible as do some non-catholics.
The charge was not that our encouraging people to read Scripture was for different reasons or less enthusiastic than the encouragement offered by some non-Catholics.

The charge was that we discourage the reading of the Bible. I was addressing that charge and not some other charge brought up later. One thing at a time.

In short, indulgences have always been an example of moral and spiritual rot and handing out rot for a good purpose does not change the practice into something else.

I disagree. The is such a thing as mens rea If I give you arsenic thinking it's chocolate brownies. I may be guilty of ignorance and carelessness but I am not guilty of murder one. If I give you arsenic thinking it's a deadly poison, then I am a murderer. There is an almost universally acknowledged distinction between criminal carelessness and premeditated murder.

Now IF indulgences are always bad, then they are always bad. Are we clear on that?

But it their use has sometimes been perverted, then it is not clear that they are always bad. Oxycontin has legitimate uses, and illegitimate uses. The illegitimate uses themselves do not show that oxycontin is always bad. For that one would have to look elsewhere.

IF you are trying to argue the proposition that indulgences are bad, I have not seen the argument. If you're just saying they're bad, well, fine. I disagree.