ECCLESIA VEL RES PUBLICA

[ReveredOwl 5639]

 

 

ECCLESIA VEL RES PUBLICA

CHURCH OR STATE

5^th of Sigismund’s End, 1768

 

To the Auditor of the Tribunal,

                I write this letter to you today to express my grave concern over our most holy institution and the recent decision yourself and the curia have taken, the lifting of the excommunication of Jasper Carrington. Whilst I was Auditor, as I’m sure you will recall, I spent years investigating the assassination of High Pontiff Pontian III and the other crimes Jasper had committed. Contrary to the letter published a few saints day ago that lifts his excommunication, there were other reasons for his excommunication that the court neglected to pursue. As Auditor, I found him guilty of assassinating High Pontiff Pontian III, sacrilege via striking a clergyman, fornicating with an elf to produce a half-breed child and attempting to force the church to hold a marriage between him and his elven lover and when that failed he had a pagan dwarf hold his ceremony instead. Throughout my investigation I received absolutely no support from anybody in the Curia or the Pontiff, however I pursued this regardless for even then many in the curia were unfit for their positions.

 

Despite his excommunication Jasper Carrington still held positions of authority in the capital city of Helena, contrary to canon law. He was allowed to reside in the city and clergymen even permitted this excommunicated man into sacred grounds. Now, the letter that lifts his excommunication cites the trial of ‘The Crown v. Carrington’ as a basis for its removal, this is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to obscure your secular motives. The trial was a miscarriage of justice and a farce for many reasons. I do not believe you were there so I will inform you of what transpired. Firstly, the Solicitor-General, the man assigned to gather the crown's evidence, witnesses and everything necessary to prosecute, neglected or even refused to come to the court to act as prosecution. One might wonder why he refused but days later he was seen meeting with Jasper as if they were best friends. Usually if the prosecutor is unavailable a miss-trial is called and it is held again at a different date, like I have seen so many done before, but this was not the case. Sir John, the judge, forced the case to proceed without a prosecutor so we were forced to get a hold of an inexperienced lawyer who did not have any evidence or witness testimonies to hand. I have seen many trials halted mid-way through as the prosecutor has other duties to attend to. Furthermore, this trial lacked any form of jury, as all trials must. How could this have been a fair trial with all these necessary things missing? Cardinal Arthur was also ready to stand as a witness however the judge wished for the trial to be over quickly and instead of allowing the court to proceed at its own pace, refused to allow him to speak as a witness, is this what you perceive as the ‘emperors justice’? After Arthur was refused to speak his testimony, as if on cue, a man barged into the court proclaiming to have assassinated Pontian, there was doubt over his guilt. The man was the imperial architect and held a cross as proof, supposedly the cross from Pontian’s corpse, it was not his cross that the prosecution tried to explain. Pontian had given his cross to the dying King of Haense shortly before and the current King of Haense still has this in his possession. Regardless of this fact the judge took his confession as if it were the holy scrolls themselves. Instead of allowing this man to be questioned further on his guilt and motive, he ordered the man to be executed without delay and subsequently found Jasper innocent of assassination.

 

Regardless of the court's verdict, I had chosen to keep the excommunication on Jasper Carrington in place as I was and still am certain of his guilt. The excommunication remained on Jasper, with the Curia’s support, as they did not remove it. If the Pontiff or Curia were sure that the man who claimed his guilt was in fact the assassin, why was Jasper’s excommunication not lifted at the conclusion of the trial and instead removed 15 years after, a few days after he was promoted to Secretary of State for Interior? This whole situation reeks of secularism, the church is supposed to be a spiritual institution where its decisions are not influenced by the earthly titles one holds, though it is clear secularism is what drives the curia to act, not their faith and love for GOD.

 

However, whilst we are on the topic of lifting excommunications, if the killer of the Pontiff’s predecessor is able to have his excommunication lifted so easily, simply due to his earthly titles, why does the excommunication of a location remain in effect? I beseech you, noble Auditor, as perhaps one of the only men in the curia left with freewill and not shackled by secularism, to reconsider the excommunication of Rubern. Do not mistake my message here, Rubern were foul for what they did in the war, however an excommunication of a location is simply unheard of, individuals should be excommunicated. People should not be condemned to the void simply for the location they live in, but for the acts they commit.

 

I also beseech you, Auditor, to reconsider the removal of the excommunication of Jasper Carrington. It is very clear that the removal of his excommunication is purely political and that should be unbecoming of our church, but sadly it is becoming more and more commonplace. The reasons that Amadeus has listed for its removal are unfounded and are simply a cloak of deceit.  

 

GOD bless all true Canonists!

@Porkgasm

[VIROS 2915]

James II reads over the letter which was addressed to his Auditor. He speaks to his Curia “Once again Friar Boniface issues an open letter rather than communicate privately with the authority in question. This time, even more egregiously, he accuses Imperial courts of miscarriage of justice. I fear for the civil consequences of his sedition.” The High Pontiff shakes his head, continuing “He is right that former Archbishop Bram’s excommunication of all Rubern was doctrinally flawed--the leadership should’ve been excommunicated, and the country made anathema, as Daniel the Great did of the Acerbites. Although, in truth, the ‘country’ is only inhabited by a few bandits sharing a castle under the Princess: excommunicating them would be in effect excommunication of the entire country.” James II idly scratches a few names of former Ruberni leaders onto the letter, pondering. He speaks again “But, as usual, the Friar undercuts his point by shouting it out for the world to see. What is the public to think, when clergymen decry the leadership of the Mother Church? He brings confusion among the faithful. I have warned him time and time again that these public challenges to Church authority must stop. . . Very regrettable.”