Posted on 11/29/2007 6:24:40 AM PST by NYer
A macabre 17th century book about the execution of Gunpowder Plot conspirator Father Henry Garnet believed to be bound in the priest's own skin will go under the hammer this Sunday. Perhaps most spooky of all, some claim to see an image of the priest's tortured face peering out of the anthropodermic binding of 'A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors, Garnet a Jesuit and his Confederats'.
|
|
|
|
It is anyone's guess how much the book, which was made in London in 1606 by Robert Barker, the king's printer, just months after Garnet's execution, will fetch when it goes under the hammer at Wilkinson's Auctioneers in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.
Sid Wilkinson, the auctioneer, said: "Because the subject matter is so strange, we thought putting an estimate on it might be a bit vulgar.
"It could make £1,000, it could make hundreds, we just don't know."
He said the book is so rare Wilkinson's had never auctioned one before, but added that making books out of convicts' skin was not an entirely unusual practice.
Garnet's involvement in the plot by Catholics to kill King James I and most of the Protestant aristocracy by blowing up the Houses of Parliament has long been debated. The priest claimed that, although he was not involved in the plot, he heard details of the plot during confessions, which bound him to confidentiality.
Despite his admonitions, the plotters went ahead.
Despite his lack of active involvement, Garnet was found guilty of treason and executed in May 1606.
According to legend, a piece of bloodstained straw at the scene of his execution started to develop an exact image of the priest's face, which auctioneers suggest has happened to the book.
St. John Nepomucene is especially the patron of priests who have died to protect the Seal of the Confessional. Note the cherub with finger to lips - St. John was tortured and then drowned for refusing to reveal to the King of Bohemia what his Queen had said in confession.
He no doubt welcomed this holy priest into Heavenly glory. "Faithful unto death."
The Vatican (or perhaps a diocese or parish with this saint as their patron) ought to purchase this book and give decent repose his the earthly relics.
KLAATUUUU......BARADAA......NIKHIKHIKHIKHHMMMmmkd....there...i said it.
A: Well, maybe not every single syllable, but basically, yeah, I said them.
Bet you’d put your tongue on a freezing flag pole to see if it would stick. Didn’t your Mom warn you about signs that say “Wet Paint?”
Not saying every syllable means you will only be half of a changling.
Remember what happened in “The Fly”?
Help me! Help me!
You probably won’t be able to type an answer to this so good luck.
But putting it up for auction? No problem!
Big E Smalls...
Big E Smalls...
“I said ‘em...kinda.”
Well, if it’s a riddle I’m stumped. I’m reminded about A Christmas Story and the ending scene in The Fly where the man-headed fly gets mercifully brained by the rock before the spider gets him (yeah, that one has been Mighty-Beef branded onto my brain since I was a child.) The wet paint thing sounded somewhat familiar but I have no idea. I actually tried to see if it was a movie quote and found this little rant which made me chuckle:
Recursion: Big Bird was painting a bench. He’d just finished applying the last coat of paint, and his friends were admiring his handiwork. As he replaced the paint brush, he explained - concerned citizen that he was - that it was necessary to warn any passers-by that this was a freshly-painted bench. This made sense to me, because I remembered a previous episode in which whatshisface, the mime, sat down on a freshly-painted bench and got white stripes all over his black suit. Big Bird would have none of that, so he produced a blank piece of paper and wrote WET PAINT on it, and hung it by the bench. His only writing implements, however, were the paint and paintbrush he’d brought with him, so after creating the WET PAINT sign he realized that the sign itself contained wet paint, and so he needed to create another WET PAINT sign, to warn people about the first sign. So he created the second sign, and - apparently having learned nothing from his experience with the first sign - realized that he’d need a new one.
I watched this intently, and suddenly it dawned on me: every WET PAINT sign demanded another. I got it, but Big Bird didn’t. I got worried; would he be doing this forever? Or would someone give him a crayon and tell him to use it for the next sign?
Soon the scene ended, and I distractedly watched for the next few minutes as the mime explained the WALK/DON’T WALK signs, and as the Count showed that it doesn’t matter how you arrange the blocks because you still have the same number of them, and as someone didn’t want to share his cookie with Cookie Monster until Kermit came by to teach a lesson about sharing. Whatever. I didn’t care, because I was concerned that Big Bird was still making WET PAINT signs.
Cut to the next scene:recursion Big Bird surrounded by hundreds - maybe even two hundred - WET PAINT signs, happily making another one because the last one was still wet. And no one handed him a damned crayon, and the episode ended right there.
I burst into tears.
My mother, startled (her toddler was bawling at the end of Sesame Street, after all), hurried into the family room and asked me what was wrong, and I blubbered something about the endless production of WET PAINT signs and how Big Bird would be making them forever because each sign told him to make another one. FOREVER. I couldn’t think of anything worse than spending one’s entire life making WET PAINT signs, and I worried that that was to be Big Bird’s fate. It troubled me more than I could put into words. That happy yellow bird, doing this for the rest of his life. And he showed such promise! Would he never get to have a family? go to the park again? And what of Snuffleuppagus?
Okay, then, serious question: A guy says, “Father, I’m sorry, but I’m thinking of killing my wife and kids.” Priest says, “No, I admonish you not to do that.” Guy says, “Sorry, I’m off to pick up my gun now. I’ll be back later to confess again.”
Priest can’t even call 9-1-1?
So does, "skin mag."
I am a Catholic but this just sound icky.
If you want to know how a priest is supposed to handle a situation such as you describe, I suggest asking one. I don't really know the answer. I'm given to understand that such matters are discussed in seminary. If the seminary is any good, anyway.
The book was not made by Catholics.
It was made by the King’s own bookmaker.
I think the Catholic church has already gone through this several times in the past. If you hear of a child being tortured and murdered, you MUST tell someone. If you know of any crimes being confessed to, you must reveal it. If someone is running around on his wife, that's different. If someone wanted to kill Hillary, you must say something even if you don't vote for her. It's called "right and wrong." Taking an oath to hide crimes is a cult indication. I wonder how many priests are in Hell for protecting the mob?
Thanks. Did not see that.
Of course you didn’t see it. It’s not in this article. There’s on over on the “Religion Forum” with a little more detail ... including that bit.
Bah ... it IS in this article ... but I first saw it over on the other one.
“So if you hear a confession of murder, you are obliged to let it happen? Read Romans 1 last verse. He is as guilty as the murderers if he did nothing to stop it.”
Realistically, a priest is in no way responcible for what people choose to do with their own immortal souls. He can provide guidance, certainly, and there are priests who have broken their vows to report particularly vile crimes. But let’s also not pretend there aren’t people who go to confession as a form of therapy, and make all sorts of absurd claims or vent through what they’d like to do to people. How is a priest to determine who is legitimate? Further, there’s always some punk kid, or adult, who thinks it’d be good for a laugh to tell a priest some horrific, though false, story that they won’t be able to get out of their head.
There is actually even a list online, I didn’t bother to read it (just googled it to back myself up here) called “50 fun things to do during confession.” I may be horribly misjudging the slant of the article, but I would guess saying you commited a terrible crime is probably on the list.
A priest may (and in some cases is obliged to) withhold absolution until the person confesses his or her crime to the civil authorities. They can be pretty forceful with that tack. (Read Giovanni Guareschi's Little World of Don Camillo, where a Communist assassin tries to get absolution from Don Camillo at gunpoint. He does not succeed.)
But the Seal is absolute. (By the way, a legal privilege is accorded in law to Protestant ministers, psychiatrists, psychologists, lawyers, accountants, and physicians. I guess they're all members of a cult?)
My point was that there has been, in the past, court challenges to this “Absolute seal”. If a priest hears of a mass murder about to happen, or has already happened, I would think he would make “the right” decision. If he is somehow confused about what is right and wrong, I think its time to get a new vocation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.