On Inquisition

This week's exploration is of the role of the inquisitor, its basis in the Testament, and its ultimate purpose.

Perhaps the most blessed and most admirable scholarly pursuit, however, is one that takes as its center not the study of any one thing, but rather commits itself to the refutation and repudiation of heresies and slanders. We know that such Kindred that walk in these nights have intellects vast and creative. Their Damnation may have been given them before the coming of the Dark Father and his teachings, or perhaps they are yet newly Damned by sinful and impious sires, and so they use such gifts to harass and mock the fellowship of the Sanctified. 

Such scholars of the Sanctified as have talent for it must therefore bend their minds to the unraveling of arguments and the refutation of all points in these irreverent tracts and speeches. 

  - Rule of Golgotha 11, paragraphs 5-6

The words inquisitor and inquisition derive from the Latin quaerere meaning "to seek." An inquisitor then is one who seeks for something and an inquisition is the search for it. An inquisitor is someone who makes inquiry, who inquires, after something.

Within the context of the Lancea Sanctum, the inquisitor is one who searches for heresies and slanders that they might be exposed, laid bare, and confronted. An inquisitor in the Lancea Sanctum is concerned with matters that threaten the spiritual purity of the body of the Church, striving to identify and bring to the light any darkness that lurks within.

In order that an inquisitor might be able to identify errancy when it is found, it is important that they be well grounded in theology, comfortable with parsing rhetoric, and intimately familiar with the Testament and doctrines of the Church. Passing familiarity with any of these will fail to suffice, for those who go seeking darkness often find it in this world. If an inquisitor is not prepared to properly and clearly identify it, they are libel to wind up consumed by it. Any inquisition must begin and end within one's own heart, mind, and soul. If an inquisitor is not willing or able to look within and identify the weaknesses they themselves possess, sooner or later another will and turn that weakness to their own advantage.

In exposing errancy and challenging it within both the inquisitor and within the Church, an inquisitor brings about a more perfect Church, ready and able to fulfill God's will for kindred here on earth. While purity is much desired, it is also important to remember that an inquisition does not serve the ultimate purpose of purity. Ultimate purity is impossible given the nature of both the world in which we live, as well as our own Damnation. Ultimate purity would be the destruction of this world of sin, something that is not ours to fulfill. Instead, the ultimate purpose must be to enable the Church and its members to serve well and truly God's purpose for them. An inquisition must ultimately simply root out the worst of the errors within and serves as a reminder of the proper path. It is for this reason that the duty will last for as long as the world we inhabit, but that is right and just.

Sum Sanctus,

Simon Patterson Gloveli

Inquisitor Generalis de Lacus Magni

L'Osservatore Longinian - volume 1, issue 1

L'Osservatore Longinian - volume 1, issue 1

On Kindred Rule

As kindred society finds itself in the grips of a fever with the underlying purpose being the creation of national bodies governing Clan and Covenant, my thoughts have gone to the following passages from The Rule of Golgotha 10:

We are not so innocent as mortal man, who professes that none shall be crowned except he who has striven lawfully. Man is hypocritical in his quest for a noble ruler; he will scheme and murder and bribe to gain what little earthly power he can, and then expects his comrades to hail him as a just and forthright man. The political mind is squirming and complex, twisting reason beyond recognition and pandering in all corners for the slightest advantage, both corporeal and spiritual. We need look only to the great cities of Rome to see and know that the governance of creatures of rational mind is a complex and bewildering undertaking. 

The pagan cities of Greece and of Persia and of the Far East have in their folly concocted mad stories of divine founding to justify the reign of one man over another. We know that there is only one divine city, the city of God which lies beyond death and is the eternal paradise. As sojourners in death we know that we shall not be given the death of the mortal, who may even with his last breath recognize the truth of God's presence on earth and embrace true faith. The city of God is not for us, and all mortal cities and courts are nothing more than dirt and despair. Thus, how much greater folly is it for us to say this unholy creature is more fit to rule than that unholy creature by virtue of his blood, or his sire, or his allegiances?

While this passage occurs within a particular historical context in the Testament of Longinus, the deeper question echoes across the millennia. In the fever of this new Crucible, we seem driven to seize upon some answer, whether that answer be right or wrong. I do not here wish to be sidetracked into the question of why this idea now burns within each of us, or of the fashion in which whatever answer is decided upon may mystically bind us.

Why, when, and how ought kindred rule over each other?

Kindred society is not now, nor has it ever been, a society of laws. We have found and accepted a few core Traditions that stretch back more than two millennia but, save for a few brief aberrations, there have been no empires, no far-reaching bureaucracy, no unified system of justice, and no common culture. Attempts to create each of these things have invariably led to bloodshed and violence, with kindred turning upon each other in bids either for their place at the top of the pile of corpses, or for freedom from the rule of another.

Kindred are not ruled, so much as policed within the bounds of the essential Traditions that we recognize as inviolable for our own survival. Much of the policing is and always has had to be done not by an elite few, but by each and every member of society. Certainly, titles exist, almost always local in nature, where the one who wears the title can regularly interact with those over whom they have some authority. That authority is granted and utilized by dint of ability, but also of acceptance. No one kindred is great enough to fend off all of the others within any but the smallest of groups. While variance exists, the relative parity of our powers requires a modicum of restraint. When one goes too far, they are inevitably brought low.

Some cry now that these modern nights are different. Kindred can rapidly communicate across the entire span of the globe en masse for the first time during a Crucible. Transportation likewise exists with sufficient speed to bring kindred together in the span of a few nights, no matter how great the distance between them originally. Surely, they argue, given these things, the possibility exists of real and far-reaching rule.

They forget that while transportation and communication may be possible, kindred at large remain relatively stationary beings. While some few might wander regularly a few hundred miles and attend the occasional gathering of a handful of Courts, this increased proximity is limited. Those who are present and involved with a local populace each and every night remain a true community. Distant voices may have weight, but presence rules our society. How many Princes rule for long who are only heard and seen upon special occasion? Why should we expect that it would be any different in this Crucible than in the past?

It is true that Clans and Covenants have deeper cultures and more common ties that do allow for stronger bonds across distances. It is for that reason that each typically possesses some form of regional structure. Yet, while these regional bodies may carry weight, few can be said to truly rule. The creation of far-reaching national or supranational bodies of kindred, given the disparate nature of our domains, the differing forms of our interests, and the native kindred drive to rebuke the authority of others over them, seems one doomed to be at most some fancy words on paper and a few new flourishes to an electronic signature if not well crafted with the reality of kindred existence in mind.

Whether, in our collective fever, we are able to tame the lust for power within ourselves and forge answers that are limited in scope to the reality of our condition, or if we are destined to fly too high like Icarus and burn up in the rays of the sun, remains unclear. I will pray that we have the wisdom to choose wisely and spare our society the painful cleansing by fire that has occurred in the past.

Sum Sanctus,

Simon Patterson Gloveli

Inquisitor Generalis de Lacus Magni