Dueling

[Mateo el Feo]

While I can't see anything wrong with studying and training in weapons, I sometimes get the impression that some of the phamily nostalgically view dueling as an "honorable" thing for the Christian man.

I was surprised to find the following from the final session of the Council of Trent had this to say about dueling [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html"](link)[/url]:
[quote name='Council of Trent' date=' Session 25'][b]CHAPTER XIX.[/b]
Duelling is prohibited under the most severe penalties.

The detestable custom of duelling, introduced by the contrivance of the devil, that by the bloody death of the body, he may accomplish the ruin of the soul, shall be utterly exterminated from the Christian world. Any emperor, kings, dukes, princes, marquises, counts, and temporal lords by whatsoever other name entitled, who shall grant a place within their territories for single combat between Christians, shall be thereupon excommunicated, and shall be understood to be deprived of jurisdiction and dominion over any city, castle, or place, in or at which they have permitted the duel to take place, which they hold of the church ; and if those places be held as a fief they shall forthwith escheat to their direct lords.

As to the persons who have fought, and those who are called their seconds (sponsors), they shall incur the penalty of excommunication, and the confiscation of all their property, and of perpetual infamy, and are to be punished as homicides, according to the sacred canons; and if they have perished in the conflict itself, they shall be for ever deprived of ecclesiastical sepulture. Those also who have given counsel in the ease of a duel, whether for the question of right, or fact, or have in any other way whatever persuaded any one thereunto, as also the spectators thereof, shall be subjected to the bond of excommunication, and of a perpetual malediction ; any privilege soever, or evil custom, though immemorial, notwithstanding.[/quote]

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:07 AM'] While I can't see anything wrong with studying and training in weapons, I sometimes get the impression that some of the phamily nostalgically view dueling as an "honorable" thing for the Christian man.

I was surprised to find the following from the final session of the Council of Trent had this to say about dueling [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html"](link)[/url]:
[/quote]
This isn't surprising in my opinion. I wanted to bring something similar up because the Orthodox these days are very non-violent. You are not allowed to take communion for 3 years if you kill someone even in self-defense. I talked to my priest and he said that a true christian can always pick a better calling than to be a soldier. He also said that it is better to be martyred than take another human life.

For me this is hard because I've trained with hand to hand combat, guns, and swords in a very serious manner since I was about 11. So my natural inclination is towards fighting as opposed to non-violent resistance. This is why I have a fondness for the crusading orders and am looking for Catholic and Orthodox teachings and theology that supports the use of force when necessary. Bernard of Clairvaux is certainly a good place to look but even he doesn't give a blank check.

So I don't find it surprising that the Council of Trent denounced duelling when many priests and bishops denounced the First Crusade.

[Soldier4Him]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 10 2004, 01:13 AM'] I talked to my priest and he said that a true christian can always pick a better calling than to be a soldier. [/quote]
And yet Christ specifically calls us to be soldiers.

Romans 13:11&12

"And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;
the night is advanced, the day is at hand. Let us then throw off the works of darkness (and) put on the armor of light"


2 Corinthians 3-6

"For, although we are in the flesh, we do not battle according to the flesh,
for the weapons of our battle are not of flesh but are enormously powerful, capable of destroying fortresses. We destroy arguments
and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ,
and we are ready to punish every disobedience, once your obedience is complete."




Ephesians 6:10-18

"Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones"

[Snarf]

As far as I'm concerned, dueling is for historical appreciation only. To denounce a medieval art with a renaissance decree is ex post facto.

[Mateo el Feo]

This has nothing to do with the First Crusade. The document is written 500 years after the First Crusade. You should re-read the quote to see what the Church is condemning.

[quote]You are not allowed to take communion for 3 years if you kill someone even in self-defense. I talked to my priest and he said that a true christian can always pick a better calling than to be a soldier. He also said that it is better to be martyred than take another human life.[/quote]

I just want make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the Orthodox prohibit the reception of Eucharist for 3 years after killing someone in self-defense?

Regarding the "better to be martyred" logic, I'm just thinking of the genocides of the 20th century that affected the Orthodox: the Armenians in Turkey, the Russian Orthodox faithful in the USSR. Also, can you imagine your priest trying to push that logic as Constantinople was being attacked by the Ottoman Turks?

Anyway, back to the topic...

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:36 AM'] This has nothing to do with the First Crusade. The document is written 500 years after the First Crusade. You should re-read the quote to see what the Church is condemning.



I just want make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the Orthodox prohibit the reception of Eucharist for 3 years after killing someone in self-defense?

Regarding the "better to be martyred" logic, I'm just thinking of the genocides of the 20th century that affected the Orthodox: the Armenians in Turkey, the Russian Orthodox faithful in the USSR. Also, can you imagine your priest trying to push that logic as Constantinople was being attacked by the Ottoman Turks?

Anyway, back to the topic... [/quote]
You're not reading what I'm writing or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying the decree is UNSURPRISING because there was actually quite a bit of Catholic outcry against all violence - even that sanctioned by the Pope himself. The First Crusade is a prime example of violence being sanctioned by the Church. However, not everyone within the church agreed on it. So, I'm not comparing apples and oranges here I'm discussing the historical precendent for non-violence within Church theology. I'm a medieval studies major, I couldn't confuse the Council of Trent with the First Crusade. I'm merely drawing parallels.

To address the idea of being soldiers - this was strictly a reference to actual soldiers like joining the marines, army, navy, etc.

As far as the reception of Communion - yes. Three years even in self-defense. However, the punishment can be lessened at the discretion of the Bishop whose bishopric you're located in.

And yes, I can imagine my priest using that logic in regards to the Ottoman Turks. My priest is a man who stands by his non-violent principles. However, I don't share them so deeply. I'm much more into the active, fighting, mentality.

[Guest Aluigi]

the Church throughout the middle ages was about simply regulating violence and making sure it was focused on good (for example: The Peace of God and the Truce of God legislation). dueling is focused on personal pride. the only thing personal you can use justifiable force for is personal defense of life (not defense of personal honor/rep, that doesn't merit force). otherwise, force can be used to defend another's life. it can also be used to defend the honor of the Church or of anything Sacred if I'm not mistaken, but i think the dishonor should be severe enough that force becomes necessary otherwise you shouldn't use force. (for example: if I saw someone perhaps slip the blessed sacrament into their pocket, I would without hesitation run up and tackle them, if they resist I would consider knocking them out. or if i saw someone with a baseball bat smash a church window and about to enter and I had a weapon, i'd be justified in using force)

dueling was glorified violence of defending pride and reputation, gaining glory at the expense of another's life. that's why it wasn't allowed. this is also why to an extent trials being settled by ordeals was abolished by the Church, it was for revenge and actually random chance to say whichever survived was innocent. I'm sure there's other examples, but they don't negate just use of violence.

from scripture, most obviously we all know how Jesus violently drove the money changers out of the temple, also we think of how Jesus actually commands people that if they don't have a sword they should sell their cloak and buy one. also, I think they imagery that if Jesus wanted to He could call down legions of angels from heaven to come to His aid show that this is not a different God from the God of the Old Testament, God hasn't suddenly turned pascifist here. Love your enemies, but that doesn't mean don't have enemies, just love them. and turning the other cheak deals with pride and revenge, not all violence. this anti-dueling decree is actually saying "if someone hurts your pride, insults you, et cetera: turn the other cheek"

Edited December 10, 2004 by Aluigi

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:33 AM'] As far as I'm concerned, dueling is for historical appreciation only. To denounce a medieval art with a renaissance decree is ex post facto. [/quote]
Just curious: are you suggesting that the Council of Trent was commenting on an issue of another age and not something that was actually a problem for them?

I'm quite sure that dueling was a real problem in the 16th century. In fact, US history records famous duelists--including president--occuring almost three hundred years [i]after [/i]the Council declaration.

I guess I am just a bit suspect of this being called "[i]ex post facto[/i]." The Council was dealing with real issues of the day.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:49 AM'] Just curious: are you suggesting that the Council of Trent was commenting on an issue of another age and not something that was actually a problem for them?

I'm quite sure that dueling was a real problem in the 16th century. In fact, US history records famous duelists--including president--occuring almost three hundred years [i]after [/i]the Council declaration.

I guess I am just a bit suspect of this being called "[i]ex post facto[/i]." The Council was dealing with real issues of the day. [/quote]
Duelling is not a medieval phenomena at all. I've studied violence in the middle ages and Duelling as we understand it did not exist them. There existed jousting, armed combat tournaments, and judicial combats (sometimes called judicial duels) but not duelling for honor. Most of the time during the middle ages and renaissance, honor was a more collective affair. We can see this especially in Italy with factional violence and family vendettas. This existed in Anglo-saxon England as well.

Duelling as a fight between two gentlemen over honor was really something that began in the mid to late 16th century and continued until the nineteenth century. It was not something of the middle ages or really even most of the renaissance.

[Snarf]

My comment was saying that the Council of Trent dealt with the 16th century and beyond. It was obviously a very real phenomenon at the time, but it denotes an evolution in the practice as has been mentioned. To cry out against medieval combat on those grounds is thus counterfactual.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:14 AM'] My comment was saying that the Council of Trent dealt with the 16th century and beyond. It was obviously a very real phenomenon at the time, but it denotes an evolution in the practice as has been mentioned. To cry out against medieval combat on those grounds is thus counterfactual. [/quote]
Who cried out against medieval combat? If you're referring to me I was merely showing the Church had a history of non-violent teachings. If not then I'm still equally confused.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:44 AM'] You're not reading what I'm writing or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying the decree is UNSURPRISING because there was actually quite a bit of Catholic outcry against all violence - even that sanctioned by the Pope himself. The First Crusade is a prime example of violence being sanctioned by the Church. However, not everyone within the church agreed on it. So, I'm not comparing apples and oranges here I'm discussing the historical precendent for non-violence within Church theology. I'm a medieval studies major, I couldn't confuse the Council of Trent with the First Crusade. I'm merely drawing parallels.

To address the idea of being soldiers - this was strictly a reference to actual soldiers like joining the marines, army, navy, etc.

As far as the reception of Communion - yes. Three years even in self-defense. However, the punishment can be lessened at the discretion of the Bishop whose bishopric you're located in.

And yes, I can imagine my priest using that logic in regards to the Ottoman Turks. My priest is a man who stands by his non-violent principles. However, I don't share them so deeply. I'm much more into the active, fighting, mentality. [/quote]
You are comparing apples to oranges. To clarify:
1) A priest or bishop who opposes a Crusade does not provide proof of a "non-violent theology."
2) The condemnation of dueling does not necessarily result from a "non-violent theology."

Maybe the problem is that you are trying to see everything as "for" or "against" a supposed non-violent theology. There is a problem with viewing history with the biases of a 20th century pacifist priest.

The topic is not to find some pattern of non-violent theology in Council documents. The topic is to show that the custom of dueling was condemned by the Church.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:35 AM'] You are comparing apples to oranges.  To clarify:
1) A priest or bishop who opposes a Crusade does not provide proof of a "non-violent theology."
2)  The condemnation of dueling does not necessarily result from a "non-violent theology."

Maybe the problem is that you are trying to see everything as "for" or "against" a supposed non-violent theology.  There is a problem with viewing history with the biases of a 20th century pacifist priest.

The topic is not to find some pattern of non-violent theology in Council documents.  The topic is to show that the custom of dueling was condemned by the Church. [/quote]
I'm not trying to reconcile the church with the words of my priest and you really shouldn't be so condescending when you don't have the credentials to back it up.

The simple fact of the matter is that I'm a medieval history student and my emphasis is on the crusades and catholic crusading orders. As a result of my studies of these orders I have come to find a tension within the medieval catholic church concerning the use of violence. There is certainly non-violent theology present in the medieval catholic church and it was certainly used to speak out against all manner of wars and the crusading orders themselves.

Oftentimes this theology was only invoked by the church when it suited its needs. However, that doesn't mean that there was no theological basis for their arguments. In fact the theological basis for non-violence from a scriptural standpoint is stronger than the theological basis used for crusades and crusading orders.

The reason this applies to this thread is simply that history does not exist in a vaccuum. To say that what came before the Council of Trent (even as much as 500 or 1000 years before) does not matter is to not understand history or the policies of the church.

Edited December 10, 2004 by spathariossa

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:14 AM'] My comment was saying that the Council of Trent dealt with the 16th century and beyond. It was obviously a very real phenomenon at the time, but it denotes an evolution in the practice as has been mentioned. To cry out against medieval combat on those grounds is thus counterfactual. [/quote]
I never mentioned anything about "medeival combat." I mentioned the fact that dueling was condemned at the end of Trent.

I don't know the difference between "medieval dueling" and "16th century dueling." If there is a significant difference (i.e. enough to somehow "exempt" medeival dueling from the Council's condemnation), I think that it would be appropriate for you to share the reasoning.

Enjoy!

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:46 AM'] I never mentioned anything about "medeival combat." I mentioned the fact that dueling was condemned at the end of Trent.

I don't know the difference between "medieval dueling" and "16th century dueling." If there is a significant difference (i.e. enough to somehow "exempt" medeival dueling from the Council's condemnation), I think that it would be appropriate for you to share the reasoning.

Enjoy! [/quote]
There is a significant difference - medieval duelling mostly consisted of Judicial combat as late as the 15th and possibly even the 16th century. I'm not sure if the council excludes judicial duels or not. However, the principle behind a judicial duel was that God was on the side of the victor and therefore whatever the outcome, justice had been served. This is different from later duels of honor in which case the motive was to avenge a slight against the honor or pride of an individual.