Recommendations to the Unionist Clergy, Dialogue on Virtue and Sin, and a Call for a Second Inquest

[soggytoenails]

I wish to thank the clergy for their work in ensuring their faith's tenets are followed. This is a respectable position, one that unifies communities and teaches character. In lieu of the recent paper trail to cover the notice boards, I believe it necessary to provide feedback on the recent inquest proceedings and comment on Celate Theodoric von Greifenwaldtahl's response. I acknowledge that I am a non-Unionist in this regard.

House Nayëlen makes the following recommendations to the Unionist Clergy to improve inquest protocols:

1. Consider facilitating inquests on appropriate temple grounds, not imperial assembly halls. House Nayëlen mirrors Major Osmont's sentiments in this regard, that the choice of setting matters. I am willing to provide the Unionist clergy the benefit of the doubt that this was a mere error and not with the intent to leverage the setting's power dynamics.
   
   
2. Consider better clarity of the inquest's purposes and protocols in publications. It was unclear to me who was accused and what they were being accused of until arriving at the inquest, for the initial publication merely summoned peerage members forward by name. One might worry that this deception was intentional to sway the course of events and ensure summoned members could not be prepared. I mirror Count Valloaan's sentiments in this regard. In my conversations with Celate Riedel and Sister Charikleia Fotakis, however, I am willing to provide the benefit of the doubt and the belief that this will not happen again.
   
   
3. Consider the weight of the word "adultery" before including it in publications. Despite Sister Charikleia Fotakis' statement that such did not occur, the damage of wielding it in writing can be seen by the spread of misinformation slandering the noticeboards by journalists and noble houses alike. House Nayëlen mirrors Count Valloaan's statements in this regard. She maintains that she holds both House Salvatore and the clergy responsible for rectifying the aftermath of such actions.
   
   
4. All summoned by name should be allowed to speak. I am concerned that my name was wielded in a paper demanding my presence, yet I was initially denied the opportunity to speak because I follow a different faith. This begs the question, why mention my name and write that my "failure to attend will result in judgment in absentia?" I'm curious whether you hold the words of your faithful above the words of truth and testimony, regardless of who provides them. In this view, how can judgment on one's struggle with Virtue and Sin be placed if the strength of evidence is based on whether they follow your doctrines? I am grateful for Sister Charikleia's advocacy to allow me space to speak and am hopeful that such a situation does not occur again, whether it be within my faith's protocols or yours.

House Nayëlen considers the words of Celate Theodoric von Greifenwaldtahl:

"It is not your place as a lay person to cast an interpretation of the words of Theomar on the faithful, especially as an outsider of the faith, as you are failing to see the fundamental point of the concept of Sin in Unionism. Sin is not a transgression or a gotcha that can be used to discount every word or expression of another the moment one is displayed, and Sin is not found in the momentary expressions of emotion or sentiment. Theomar does not demand forever patience, Ness does not demand forever compassion, and Elia does not demand forever patience. Virtue and Sin exist in a constant struggle back and forth over the soul, where not the single transgression casts shadow, and the single repentance brings cleansing luminance. It is your prerogative as a peer to publish condemnation and slander of your fellows, but you are bidden to hold your tongue on matters of the faith which you do not have the authority or latitude of wisdom to speak of." - Celate Theodoric von Greifenwaldtahl

As a non-Unionist, this has been enlightening to read. I am curious how Virtue and Sin are weighed, as this was not made clear to me with the inquest's proceedings. If it is believed that "Virtue and Sin exist in a constant struggle back and forth over the soul, where not the single transgression casts shadow, and the single repentance brings cleansing luminance," then why did such an inquest fail to consider actions of virtue or request testimonies of such? The inquest only sought evidence of Sin and nothing more, both within and outside its proceedings. This is demonstrated by the bias already present in the initial call for a holy inquest. While I speculate that this was not the fault of the Celates facilitating, but outdated protocols, I wonder what evidence and testimonies exist of Count Norinn's demonstration of Virtue, for "Sin is not a transgression or a gotcha that can be used to discount every word or expression of another the moment one is displayed." What is the weight of a Writ of Sin that excludes considerations of good character in its judgment?

With this, my reflections only lead me to one conclusion: a second holy inquest is necessary - one that seeks to rectify the mistakes of the previous and uphold Unionism philosophies of Virtue and Sin. One that gives space for speakers to provide testimonies of the individual in question, where the weight of such expressions is not based on religious affiliations but on the understanding that all are held equal under the Empire's banner.

I am confident that, while Count Norinn has erred in some ways, he has also demonstrated Virtue in others. These should come to light so he may be judged fairly in your faith.

Regards,
Her Ladyship, Suvitril Nayëlen
Countess of Majorda
Matriarch of House Nayëlen

 

[soggytoenails]

Tags: @weatherbyrd @Reading5993 @KrakenLord01 @Drahydra @MonMarty @joglak @Nathan

Edit: I forgot to tag two more: @HeyoBiggums @Local_Schnom

 

[MonMarty]

A note pinned underneath:

Because I was bidden by name, although I would have preferred not to, I shall offer commentary.

1.) Recommendations to Unionist Clergy for an improved inquest are misdirected. Every priest prefers a different inquest format, each inquest is its own business, there is no handbook for a common process of arriving to one cohesive conclusion because it is merely a vehicle for the personal judgement process of the individual. Some priests do not do inquests, and just go straight to the Writ. I myself hold one-on-one inquests, and failing that, a public forum where the subject is not the target, but a platform of kin in faith. No process is better than another, they are always personal, I do not denounce your suggestions, merely suggest you appropriately aim them at the priests involved, not those who weren't even there like this is some kind of institutional critique.

2.) I would be extremely careful to regurgitate my words to suit whatever rhetorical device you find useful. You aptly quote part of my statement, but not my whole statement, specifically the part where I state that I do not cast judgement on the trial or the conclusion, and that I make no statement in relation to it. The statement amended to the good Elf's post, was purely to criticize their rhetoric, not to create a gotcha moment for you to re-use my rhetoric to attack the judgement of the priests. If you have genuine questions about the application of this rhetoric to faith, you can come find me in the Salvation Temple, but do not use my words to draw into question the work of others, that is not what they are meant for, and does not show a stated curiosity for the tenets, but a willingness to use them as argumentative devices to prove your preferred conclusion.

I am always available at the Salvation Temple for those who seek advice, expansion, elaboration, or an understanding of the concepts of Unionism, under the caveat that the clergy are always just a flawed and equally sinful mortal expression of the immortal divine words of the Gods. I do not have all the answers, no priest has all the answers, and the best we can do is provide peace of mind.

Theo.