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... )
lol, nice quote :) I'm afraid yes, he'll have to kill. At least, he has to make a decision to kill. He's not anywhere skilled enough to make sure he's maiming and not killing, especially not in the heat of a battle.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the whole "priests fight with mace/staff/etc." fantasy clichée is really based on one guy who had an unusual fighting style. Maybe some bishop or such travelling with one of the Crusader kings
( ... )
Ah, some quick googling got me this more indepth article on why the "blunt weapons for priests" is nonsense, or at least not based on any wish not to shed blood:
And apparently the priests in higher positions (bishop and upwards) actually sometimes led armies, and were trained in weapons as part of their noble upbringing.
The comment section of that article also has a little information on whether the prohibition against blood-letting even existed: "The prohibition was real enough--and (re)issued several times by the Popes, perhaps because certain sections of the clergy kept ignoring it. The most famous of them all is probably the Edict of Tours in 1163, which prohibited clergy from carrying out the barber's profession since (at that time) it involved surgery and bloodletting."
NOTE: I AM NOT CATHOLIC, NOR DO I KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT CATHOLIC RITES. However, I've worked as a hospital chaplain and have witnessed the Sacrament of the Sick being given. Because my knowledge is contemporary U.S., I can't say that any/all of this will apply to your 17th century priest (a lot of rites were changed during/after Vatican II; I think the historical form that you might try googling is "extreme unction
( ... )
Actually, it can be performed on someone who is already dead, on the grounds that you can't tell at what point the soul leaves the body, so just because they LOOK dead doesn't mean that their spirit has left.
OP - try googling "extreme unction" :-) Taking confession/giving extremem unction will one of top priorities in that case.
I dunnnnoooo, the staff priest was really firm on this point??? (They apparently also do not baptize deceased people.) Which imo seems like a really shitty thing to have to tell someone's family, BUT:
While the priest will not perform the Sacrament of the Sick on someone who has already died, lots of priests will perform a blessing or something similar in order to fulfill the family's need. Like, honestly, 99% of the time the family wants some kind of closure, and ritual provides that closure, and it doesn't matter that it's not the OFFICIAL Sacrament. Sometimes the priest doesn't even tell the family that's what he's doing (!).
I'm not *sure* of the medical details on this, but one general thing you could do is have an injury that's not *necessarily* fatal, but something goes wrong.
For example, I don't know if it's possible to have a wound that abrades/damages, but doesn't actually break open, an artery. So, your priest whips a quick bandage around it (or sees that the soldier seems to be in a condition to bandage it himself), then goes off to shoot other things. But, then, the soldier moves wrong or something, and the weakened artery gives way, and he bleeds out.
Comments 31
"[the bible is] Quite specific [in regards to killing]. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps."
Reply
I'm afraid yes, he'll have to kill. At least, he has to make a decision to kill. He's not anywhere skilled enough to make sure he's maiming and not killing, especially not in the heat of a battle.
Reply
Reply
http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/394539.html
And apparently the priests in higher positions (bishop and upwards) actually sometimes led armies, and were trained in weapons as part of their noble upbringing.
The comment section of that article also has a little information on whether the prohibition against blood-letting even existed:
"The prohibition was real enough--and (re)issued several times by the Popes, perhaps because certain sections of the clergy kept ignoring it. The most famous of them all is probably the Edict of Tours in 1163, which prohibited clergy from carrying out the barber's profession since (at that time) it involved surgery and bloodletting."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
OP - try googling "extreme unction" :-) Taking confession/giving extremem unction will one of top priorities in that case.
Reply
While the priest will not perform the Sacrament of the Sick on someone who has already died, lots of priests will perform a blessing or something similar in order to fulfill the family's need. Like, honestly, 99% of the time the family wants some kind of closure, and ritual provides that closure, and it doesn't matter that it's not the OFFICIAL Sacrament. Sometimes the priest doesn't even tell the family that's what he's doing (!).
Reply
Reply
For example, I don't know if it's possible to have a wound that abrades/damages, but doesn't actually break open, an artery. So, your priest whips a quick bandage around it (or sees that the soldier seems to be in a condition to bandage it himself), then goes off to shoot other things. But, then, the soldier moves wrong or something, and the weakened artery gives way, and he bleeds out.
Reply
Leave a comment