Constraint, canon and editorial prudence [from the Bezerker]

Okay - I'll take the liberty to bring this interesting answer David Chart put on the Berklist as it might interest the users/readers of this forum.

I hope you don't mind David - but I thought you made such a good case that also sheds light on some important aspects to the Ars line and the priorities behind it.

I can tell you one chamber-pot I'm sad wasn't nailed down more tightly - the role of Satan and his relation to divine history. The Divine was vague and it worked, holding that every monotheistic religion partook in the Divine. In The Infernal, it doesn't work. Having three seperate creation myths and "faces" for Satan simply doesn't work. While "authors are not allowed to define things outside the scope of the book that they are writing", I wouldn't mind authors actually defining things within the scope of the books they are writing. That may lead to people complaining, but I prefer to have a controversial clear vision (see Criamon) than a mishmash of vague ideas (Satan).

(The relativistic "sin is what you think it is" also isn't much of a stand, and I dislike it nearly as much.)

Having been raised a Catholic and taught by Nuns & Brothers , you get a clear idea early on of what constitutes Sin.
Religion classes often had one of the local priests answering questions on the subject of Sin as well.
Once a year , we would also have the Jesuits visit.
(Catholics in small country towns , where i grew up , treated these vists with great respect)
As most of my religious instruction was immediately post Vatican II , we had to cope with all the changes that entailed.
Sin was still Sin , regardless of the Mass now being in English.