Hello everyone! I have a scene that is giving me trouble on both medical and psychological levels and would appreciate any help I can get
( Read more... )
1. Blood loss from a wound in the thigh? Someone who has seen lots of battlefield injuries can recognise when someone is bleeding too much, and some wounds even if you dress the outside, you can't stop the internal bleeding. Realistically, any gunshot wound that can kill someone is highly likely to have the victim screaming in agony, but you could go with him being quiet due to shock.
2.c. From my admittedly patchy knowledge of the Catholic church, this seems highly unlikely.
3. Have you forgotten the Spanish inquisition ;-) Plenty of priests have committed murder through history. And if he has the slightest belief in his contemporary faith's teachings on the afterlife whatsoever, then "mercy killing" without performing the last rights is by definition not mercy killing since he'd be saving a few hours pain on earth at the risk of a lot more suffering afterwards, which seems rather illogical.
1. My understanding that fatal blood loss from the thigh happens in minutes, and the person faints almost right away, whereas I really, really need him to come back from the gate under his own power and talk. Is there a workaround for that? Maybe he got shot in the thigh, walked back - and did further damage by walking? Except then he'll still faint away and won't talk :-(
2c. Thing is, medieval knights, apparently, had a special dagger - misericorde - specifically designed to finish off hopeless wounded. Granted, it was more like 12th-14th century and did not seem to involve priests, but still...
3. Nobody forgets the Spanish Inquisition :) However, what I'm asking isn't if it's possible for a priest to kill or commit murder, but whether it's legit for a priest to use a blood-spilling weapon (gun) in combat.
Point about mercy killing without last rites taken. Will avoid that, thank you :)
The legal fiction of the Inquisition was they only convicted, the secular arm sentenced, exactly because they were forbidden to hand out death sentences.
Similarly, there are restrictions on being a combat soldier. Most canonists maintain that these cover even a defensive war.
Not only was the Inquisition not allowed to execute people (secular authorities did that, and incidentally: burning at the stake was a pretty standard punishment for various 'heinous' crimes at the time - i.e. theft will get you hanged, treason will get you burned - or for any capital crime committed by a woman, because misogyny.) but the torturers of the Inquisition were officially not allowed to spill blood (unlike the torturers that were part of the standard secular justice system that mostly required confessions for convictions - there was a good reason why clerical staff and university students tried to keep up their status of falling under Church jurisdiction for so long). This means that the basic go-to method of torture for the Inquisition was strappado (there's a Wikipedia page on that - basically, shoulder dislocation from hanging by the arms). All those iron maidens and pears of anguish are much later inventions by Protestant people wanting to make the torture museums that much more gruesome
( ... )
Is there some reason the guard couldn't just be wounded badly enough to be in no shape to continue fighting himself, without necessarily appearing to be about to drop dead sometime soon? If the priest really believes the guy is dying, he'd be obligated to give him at least a perfunctory version of the last rites. (According to Catholic theology, if the guard had any serious sins on his conscience, he wouldn't be able to get into Heaven without said rites.) If there was any period in Church history when it would have officially been considered okay for a priest to finish off a dying man in order to rush into battle himself, I'm unaware of it. Besides, he'd still be obligated to give the guard those essential last rites first. So killing him personally afterward would just add to the delay before the priest could grab the weapon and head off to fight himself.
That's a great point. Um. I need that guard dead for plot reasons, so I figured I might as well get him dying now. Also, I assumed that if the guard were incapacitated-but-potentially-surviving the priest would have to stay behind and tend the wound. I mean, otherwise he'd be leaving him to bleed to death, and that's exactly the same as leaving a dying man without last rites. Unless it's possible to come up with a wound that is severe enough to incapacitate him, but not severe enough to require immediate treatment?..
Would you be able to tell me more about "at least a perfunctory version of the last rites"? What would that consist of and how long would that take?
I have no idea how theologically valid this is, but on the current BBC "Father Brown" mystery series, Father Brown sometimes just makes the sign of the cross over the obviously dying/possibly already dead murder victim and mutters a few all-purpose words like "Ego te absolvo" ("I absolve you..."), which would normally be the conclusion of the Sacrament of Penance portion of the last rites. You could probably get a better idea of what's actually considered essential in this department, at least by current Church standards, by looking up local Catholic churches, then calling the rectory (priests' residence) and telling them you're doing research for a historical-fiction story involving a priest who has to give the last rites in the middle of a battle. If a priest is around and not too busy or cranky to be bothered with non-parish business, this could be a simpler way of obtaining the information than just googling "Roman Catholic last rites/extreme unction [the pre-Vatican II term for last rites]." Although hopefully whatever sites you
( ... )
Regarding the euthanasia part, this might shed some light (or not): about the Cathars, a religious group that were persecuted by the Catholics through large parts of the middle ages, and had opposite views of a lot of interesting ethical topics, like the: "Endura
( ... )
Huh, interesting. That kind of supports the point that the priest would probably not kill the victim. And the victim definitely would not ask to get killed. Thank you!
Never mind the Catharsis - the complication of the 17th century in France is that this was the time of the Wars of Religion, Catholic against Protestant. Someone who was Catholic but fairly laid back about it would probably be suspected of being a crypto Protestant.
Good point, but I'm thinking more around 1640s, which is post-LaRochelle and the official party line is Richelieu's "I don't care who you are as long as you fight on the French side" :)
that's a nice dilemma, can't you just play it up and tell how hard it is for the priest to decide? What's expected is certainly more than a "te absolvo" and running away; I would say at least some kind of generic confession and a prayer. If the priest really wants to run, he could try to convince himself that the guy is going to live long enough to receive the sacraments after the battle; a mercy killing would be the last thing on his mind I guess, as living longer means more time for sacraments. (Not having equipment /communion, unction should not be a problem; letting him die without confession is hard. Much harder than having to kill, in my opinion.)
I'm just throwing this out here - but as for clergy killing, don't forget the Templars and other orders of monastic knights. I know very little about their structure, and whether monks and abbots are technically priests/clergy/can give absolution, &c. But it would be worth looking into.
Comments 31
2.c. From my admittedly patchy knowledge of the Catholic church, this seems highly unlikely.
3. Have you forgotten the Spanish inquisition ;-) Plenty of priests have committed murder through history. And if he has the slightest belief in his contemporary faith's teachings on the afterlife whatsoever, then "mercy killing" without performing the last rights is by definition not mercy killing since he'd be saving a few hours pain on earth at the risk of a lot more suffering afterwards, which seems rather illogical.
Reply
2c. Thing is, medieval knights, apparently, had a special dagger - misericorde - specifically designed to finish off hopeless wounded. Granted, it was more like 12th-14th century and did not seem to involve priests, but still...
3. Nobody forgets the Spanish Inquisition :) However, what I'm asking isn't if it's possible for a priest to kill or commit murder, but whether it's legit for a priest to use a blood-spilling weapon (gun) in combat.
Point about mercy killing without last rites taken. Will avoid that, thank you :)
Reply
Similarly, there are restrictions on being a combat soldier. Most canonists maintain that these cover even a defensive war.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Would you be able to tell me more about "at least a perfunctory version of the last rites"? What would that consist of and how long would that take?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment