The final cut

Overview

At the Autumn Equinox 386YE, four citizens publicly swore an oath to bear an aura of Peace for the coming year. Three of the citizens were cardinals of the Imperial Synod, and the fourth was acting as proxy to the Cardinal of Prosperity. In the history of the Empire, there has never been a successful judgement of condemnation against a member of the Assembly of the Nine elected by the Virtue assemblies. Despite this, all four were quickly condemned as heretics and blasphemers by the Assembly of Vigilance and a trial was scheduled to happen at the subsequent summit.

While preparations were made for the trial of the four, the Synod passed several judgements, all of which related to the trial, the underlying issues and the conduct of those involved. Several judgements passed by various assemblies decried the accusations of blasphemy and heresy, and called for a much narrower definition of the crime than is typically understood. The civil service had issued some guidance to the Imperial Synod on how the General Assembly might use a judgement of vindication to clear the accused, but every judgement stopped short of that - and it was clear that many priests were unhappy with the actions of those involved.

The trial itself collapsed in dramatic fashion following a statement of principle, the now infamous Judgement 42 of the General Assembly, that laid out new guidelines on how religious crimes should be judged. The judgement made it impossible for the magistrates to continue with the proceedings, and they ruled that if any trial was to take place then it would be necessary for a new judgement of condemnation to be raised.

Imperial law is surprisingly ambiguous on what actually constitutes blasphemy and heresy. In the years immediately following the death of Empress Britta, the Synod generally adopted a punitive approach, condemning anyone who was dedicated to a false virtue. In situations where auras of false virtues arose spontaneously on items, they were routinely gathered up and destroyed. But in the last few years there has been a less dogmatic approach with a Highborn general, Acseh of the Sentinels Tower, being absolved after they were found to be dedicated to the false virtue of Hate.

Now the actions of these four members of the Assembly of Nine have cut the Synod in two.

Four Judgements

Judgements were passed that decried the use of condemnation against those involved

At the last summit, the Imperial Synod passed a number of judgements that decried the condemnations in strong terms. The judgements referred to the definitions of the religious crimes of heresy and blasphemy laid out in Imperial law. These definitions are surprisingly ambiguous and do appear to leave considerable room for subjective interpretation.

A number of judgements, including one passed by the General Assembly were explicit that the actions of the four did not meet these definitions. In some cases the very notion that anyone should be condemned for these actions was itself denounced.

A number of priests beyond Anvil have disagreed with these judgements. Brynn Tendfallen claims that condemning the study of false virtues undermines the Way, but the four weren't condemned for studying false virtues - they were condemning for embracing Peace. It seems to be true that the purpose of embracing the virtue of Peace was to study it - but that defence assumes that the purpose of the action is all that matters in determining whether it is a crime or not (which Imperial law makes clear is not the case).

Likewise Maximillian found Iniska Ashwood not guilty of the charges of blasphemy and heresy on the grounds that it was not their intent to commit either crime. But Imperial law lays out an explicit framework for dealing with intent in a trial; an action is still a crime if it breaks the law, even if that was not the actors intent.

Ilai's judgement states that it is blasphemy to teach the false virtues, and that it is not blasphemy to be taught a false virtue. But there is no evidence that the four were condemned for teaching false virtues or for being taught them. The definition of blasphemy also includes the promotion of false virtues. Caoimhe Tendfallen states emphatically that there was no intention to promote the false virtues, and thus far nobody has suggested that such promotion was the intention of those accused.

But the promotion of false virtues may well have been the motivation of the Axos priests when they responded to the request to provide the hallows. If they wanted to spread acceptance of Peace in the Empire, what better way to do that than to ask the Assembly of Nine to embrace the auras? Are the four responsible for the promotion of Peace in the Empire if that outcome is the direct result of their decision to swear an oath to bear auras of the false virtue?

Condemnation and Penance

Judgements were also passed that agreed with the condemnation and instructed penance for one of those involved

The General Assembly also passed a judgement that appeared to confirm that the original condemnation of at least one of the four, Viviane Barossa de Coeurdefer, Cardinal of Ambition, was appropriate. The judgement did not get a greater majority, but it might have done, had the Cardinal not resigned before it closed.

But like the previous arguments, some priests beyond Anvil have found cause to disagree with this judgement. Nobody is disputing that the four took upon themselves hallowed objects of Peace and refused to set them aside for a year. But it is arguable whether that meets the legal definition of blasphemy or heresy.

Crucially the judgement then goes on to suggest that the cardinal has set a dangerous example, with the implicit suggestion that this action is wrong because they are a cardinal. However the Imperial constitution states that Imperial law must be applied without prejudice or favour regardless of wealth, nationality or title.

That is normally understood to mean that nobody is above the law regardless of their title, but it implies that the fact that three of the four were cardinals should have no influence one way or the other on the application of Imperial law. A cardinal should not be exempt from the law, but nor can they be held to a higher standard by it. It is the responsibility of the Synod to revoke those who set a dangerous example, but being a dangerous example to others is not illegal.

What is very clear to across the Empire is that there are legitimate arguments that can be made for and against the condemnation. The ambiguity in the law has led to a situation in which the lives of the four might hang in the balance, yet it is not clear if their actions constitute religious crimes or not. What actually constitutes "promotion" of the false virtues? Is it denigrating the true Virtues to openly carry a item hallowed to Peace?

This controversy has raised a plethora of questions, but three are now pressing.

Questions for the Synod

People beyond Anvil are demanding answers from the Synod on the way to respond to false virtues

The Imperial Synod has upheld a number of statements and judgements related to the four, but they have in some cases been contradictory and simply helped increase the confusion felt by the virtuous folk of the Empire. This confusion risks causing citizens to question the moral authority of the Synod, coming as it does on the heels of the still-largely-unresolved Vardas Crisis. There was an opportunity to vindicate, or further condemn, the four but that was not entirely achieved but only one of the four remains a member of the Assembly of Nine.

As such, the discourse beyond Anvil is currently focussed elsewhere. Rather than concern themselves with the rights and wrongs of individuals, it is matters of Virtue, false and true, that people are demanding answers on. Sadly, it has escalated to the point that the only body that can bring clarity to the faithful of the Empire is a clear mandate from the General Assembly.

There are, as a result of the statements and other judgements over the last six months or so, two mandates on the table.

Be Alert To All Dangers

The General Assembly can enact a mandate urging citizens to reject false virtues

There are clearly priests at Anvil who believe that the malign spiritual presence of Peace is a threat to the Empire and the Imperial Synod. Doctrine says "There are seven Virtues that guide the spirit through the Labyrinth of Ages. These are Ambition, Courage, Loyalty, Pride, Prosperity, Vigilance and Wisdom. Other qualities may benefit humanity, but lend no aid through the passage of death to rebirth, and some may hinder it." There have been discussions about what a "quality that may benefit humanity" might be, and what a quality that may hinder its passage from death to rebirth might looks like. Generally, the "malign spiritual presences" - Peace, Vengeance, Hated and the rest, as held to be dangerous to the soul and its quest for rebirth. Or, presumably, it's passage across the Howling Abyss.

The four have been roundly condemned by the Vigilance assembly. Other priests have directly questioned the decision to partake of auras of peace.

If this mandate is enacted, it will resolve this issue of peaceful hallows, and align the General Assembly with the Vigilance assembly. It will make it clear that there are Seven Virtues, and that the malign spiritual presences are so-called because they are dangerous to the Empire and hinder the quest for enlightenment.

The Virtuous will be vigilant against the teachings or influence of Peace, Hatred, Vengeance, Anarchy, Hope, and Fear. They will recognise spiritual powers other than the Seven Virtues as dangerous and malign and act appropriately - bringing them to the attention of their priests or taking action themselves where appropriate. Existing cults dedicated to so-called "false virtues" will continue to keep a low-profile trying to avoid drawing attention to themselves as they have been since the destruction of Whittle.

It will still be possible to learn more about these malign spiritual presences, but it will involve directing the Department of Historical Research or the Silent Bell to do so, and be based on the understanding that these powers are dangerous. There will also, unfortunately, likely be further questions about why Silas remains Cardinal of Wisdom and what that means for the Assembly of Nine and the Wisdom Assembly.

It will also send a message to the magistrates involved in the rework of religious law, making it clear that the Synod considers these powers to be blasphemous and heretical, and encourage them to make decisions appropriately. This may make it untenable for anyone to bear a hallow of Peace - meaning that the hallowed items will need to be seized and destroyed by the militia.

Find the Right Question

The General Assembly can enact a mandate urging citizens to learn more about false virtues

The one remaining member of the four who still holds the title of Cardinal, Silas of the Cenotaph, has been very clear that they believe in the neccessity of exploring spiritual presences other than the familiar seven virtues. That without this kind of exploration the Way cannot learn and grow. Their supporters, in both the Wisdom Assembly and the Assembly of Nine, continue to endorse the decision made. Indeed the only relevant judgement to achieve a greater majority of an assembly in this matter appears to be that raised by the Assembly of Nine - although there, also, it seems that two of those eligible to vote did not support the judgement.

The General Assembly can choose to endorse and support this stance - that the virtuous should explore the so-called false virtues.

If this mandate is enacted, it will resolve this issue of the peaceful hallows, and align the General Assembly with the Wisdom Assembly on the need to explore spiritual powers other than the Seven Virtues. The Virtuous will be open to the idea that Peace, Hatred, Vengeance, Anarchy, Hope, and Fear might be forces that benefit humanity, or even in theory be equal in importance to the accepted Seven Virtues.

Over the next year there will be further opportunities for priests of the Synod to experience and explore false virtues, to increase their understanding by personally engaging with them. It will, however, also make it clear to the virtuous of the Empire that it is acceptable for them to explore these powers. Since the destruction of Whittle, those secretly dedicated to Hatred, Anachy, Vengeance and Peace in particular have been keeping their heads down, trying to avoid drawing attention to themselves. This mandate will encourage some of these pre-existing hidden sects dedicated to these so-called "false virtues" to become more bold.

The mandate will also send a message to the magistrates, even before the full review of religious law. They will take the view that it is clearly not blasphemy or heresy to bear items hallowed with false auras, nor to be dedicated to other powers or bear their auras. There will be no further attempt to separate the four from their hallowed items.

Competition and Unity

These mandates are in competition with each other If a mandate is not upheld with a greater majority, it will not affect Urizen or Varushka

Varushka, urizen, and now potentially Wintermark all take issue with mandates enacted by the General Assembly that do not achieve a greater majority. If one of these mandates is upheld and enacted without that majority, it will have no impact in those nations critical of such things. This risks causing further disruption, as the majority of the Empire's virtuous citizens follow the guidance of the Synod but those other nations continue to argue, their concerns in no way mollified. It's not possible to predict what form this might take, but it will certainly mean more disruption for the Synod.

As such the Tribunes of the Synod have advised that if one of these mandates is raised, it might be prudent for the Cardinal of Vigilance or the Cardinal of Wisdom (as appropriate) to request that further scrutiny be applied, ensuring as many Synod members as possible have time to discuss and make their opinions known. If both mandates are raised and upheld, the Tribunes note that as with all competing mandates it is the one with the greater margin that will be enacted - meaning that it is just as important for priests to vote against a mandate they do not support as it is to vote in favour of one they do support.

No Clear Decision

The Imperial Synod may choose to uphold or enact neither mandate This will cause the situation to continue to escalate

It is possible the General Assembly will not choose to uphold or enact either of these mandates during the Spring Equinox. In that case, the situation will continue to develop unpredictibly. The likely outcome will be that there will be no opportunities to learn more about the malign spiritual presences, but that some of those who follow them in secret will still feel empowered to take advantage of the confusion to begin recruiting or putting their dangerous schemes into operation. Nothing will be resolved, and this particular crisis, along with the already existing crisis created by the Life of Vardas will continue.

Complex Questions

The faithful of the Empire are eager to read any Statements of Principle on this subject that pass their virtue assembly with a greater majority

Regardless of what the General Assembly chooses to do, the virtuous pilgrims of the Empire are watching their own assemblies with interest. Several - both national and virtuous - have spoken out one way or another, but those statements have tended not to achieve greater majorities. Following the Spring Equinox there cannot help but be additional scrutiny by both priests and congregations of any statement of principle that discussed malign spiritual presences - provided it gets a greater majority and thus receives widespread attention. The virtuous are very keen to hear from their assemblies, one way or another.

Questions for Wintermark

The Wintermark Assembly can use a mandate to urge members of the nation to ignore the words of priests from outside the nation

The Wintermark Assembly has openly criticized the decisions of the Assembly of Nine to dabble with malign spiritual forces. They passed a judgement, with a greater majority, calling them irresponsible and criticizing the decisions of the General Assembly to act with reckless disregar for the Empire's wellbeing. The judgement concluded with a collective plea from the Stormcrows at Anvil for the people of Wintermark to turn their backs on the other assemblies.

A dramatic and controversial statement like this is bound to cause a reaction. By itself, such a plea might not be enough to convince people that they should stop listening to the Synod. In light of the controversy surrounding the decisions taken by members of the Assembly of Nine, people are open to the idea that the rest of the Synod can no longer be trusted. If the Wintermark Assembly are serious about their statement they could use a mandate to encourage people to do as they have suggested.

If this mandate is enacted, then it will encourage people in Wintermark to treat the words of the Synod with suspicion. They will judge harshly any statement of principle passed or mandate enacted, aware of the corruption in the Assembly of Nine at the heart of the Synod.

If that happens, then any mandate that does not pass with a greater majority will have limited or no effect on Wintermark, unless that mandate were passed by the Wintermark Assembly itself. No amount of liao will persuade the people of the' Mark to listen to the mandate unless the Synod is able to speak with the resounding clarity produced by a greater majority.

Such a decision is not to be taken lightly, for it would not be easy to reverse. It would need more than just a compelling statement of principle in the Wintermark Assembly to convince the people of the Mark to regain their trust in the Synod. It would have to be accompanied by clear evidence that the Assembly of Nine are no longer dealing with malign spiritual auras and the General Assembly are making more responsible decisions.

Questions for the Magistrates

The judgements passed by the Synod made it impossible for magistrates to determine the basis on which the trial should take place The Constitutional Court plan to update Imperial doctrine to make it easier for the Synod to make clear what constitutes a religious crime The Court have asked the Imperial Senate not to amend Imperial law on religious crimes until they have had time to publish new guidance for the magistrates Until that happens, the magistrates will assume that a judgement of condemnation meets the definition of a religious crime unless it is overwhelmingly clear that it does not Any judgements of condemnation raised by the Synod will be tried on this basis

According to legal doctrine, it is for the magistrates to decide whether someone's actions meet the definitions of a religious crime or not. In practice it has been customary for a magistrate to place great weight on the deliberations on the Imperial Synod. Magistrates aim to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice taking place, to satisfy themselves that a condemnation is not vexatious or simply wrong on the facts of what occurred. But most magistrates assume they do not need to make an assessment of whether or not the actions constitute heresy or blasphemy - taking the view that that assessment has already been made by the Imperial Synod when they passed their judgement.

It is not explicit whether the judgement submitted by Tarquinius Ankarien and passed by the General Assembly contains conditions by which the Synod might judge whether an action constitutes heresy or blasphemy or whether it was intended to be used by the magistrate conducting the trial. The judgement passed shortly before the trial began, causing a hasty convention of senior magistrates outside the trial room.

The magistrate in charge of the trial, Cosme i Zuhri i Guerra, took the view that the Synod intended them to follow the guidance in the judgement. As legal doctrine gives the magistrate the right to determine how they conduct a trial, the magistrate indicated that they intended to do so in accordance with the judgement. After a short but fractious conference with Abraham and Karkovitch, Coseme announced the trial would proceed on the basis laid out in the judgement, but would be delayed until the next day to allow the priests who raised the original judgements time to reframe their prosecution. However, after subsequent discussion the Constitutional Court announced that the implications of the judgement were so far-reaching that it was not possible to continue with the trial.

If magistrates are to use a set of criteria to assess if actions constitute a religious crime then it is not entirely clear what the purpose of a Judgement of Condemnation is. Crucially, the fact that the judgement passed raises serious questions about the basis used by the Vigilance Assembly when they raised the original judgements of condemnation. Did the Vigilance Assembly intend the magistrates to assess whether the actions of the four met the legal definition of heresy and blasphemy or had they already concluded that that bar had been met? In the view of the Constitutional Court it was impossible for the trial to proceed without absolute clarity from the Synod on what basis such a trial should be conducted.

Since the summit concluded, the Constitutional Court have spent considerable time assessing the impact of judgement 42, along with the other judgements passed by the Imperial Synod. While it is theoretically possible for a magistrate to make the assessment, the view of the Court is that to do so would fundamentally impinge on the constitutionally appointed role of the Synod. The relevant sections of the Imperial Constitution state that "The Synod will ensure the behaviour of individual citizens does not debase the Empire." This role is so fundamental to the purpose of the Synod that after lengthy consideration, the Constitutional Court believe there are major constitutional hurdles in any attempt to shift this responsibility to the magistrates.

The view of the Constitutional Court is that Tarquinius' judgement has exposed fundamental shortcomings in the way Imperial law is applied by the magistrates, by highlighting the distinction between Imperial doctrine and practice. The basis for Imperial law is that the law should lay out what practices are proscribed and what are not - and then magistrates should determine whether those rules have been broken. The fact that the Synod has felt the need to issue additional guidance - whether that was intended for the Synod or the magistrates - coupled with the fact that different assemblies have taken strikingly different views on the matter in question raises fundamental issues of justice. If the magistrates can't determine if someone is guilty of blasphemy or heresy, if the Synod can't agree what constitutes a religious crime, how can any citizen be expected to observe the law?

As a result, the Court has resolved to update Imperial legal doctrine at the earliest opportunity. Imperial law states that heresy and blasphemy are illegal, and the constitution dictates that Synod should determine what constitutes a religious crime. But how that determination is made, and how the decisions are communicated to the magistrates, can be amended. The Court are going to study the historical records, going back as far as Empress Teleri, to see if there is a better alternative that they can adopt.

Such a review will take time. Until that happens, they ask the Imperial Senate not to make any changes to Imperial law on the matter of religious crimes, lest that make the job more difficult. In the meantime, the Court has confirmed that the correct legal procedure is for the Synod to determine to the best of it's ability an individual has committed a religious crime. If that happens, then they can use a judgement of condemnation to condemn them and a magistrate will then conduct the trial, based on the assumption that the Synod has correctly determined that the actions constitute a religious crime.

This means that the role of the magistrate is limited to ensuring that no miscarriage of justice is being enacted. The prosecution must still meet basical evidential standards - they must present reasoning that shows why the actions the suspects are accused of are broadly compatible with the legal definition of blasphemy or heresy. Provided they meet that very basic standard, the magistrate will not try to assess whether actions constitute a religious crime or not - because that determination has already been made by the Synod. They will restrict their judgement to assessing whether or not the individual committed the actions they are accused of.

If an assembly determines that one or more or the four has committed a religious crime, then they can pass a new judgement condemning them. If that happens then a magistrate will conduct the trial with the view that an assessment of the actions in question have already taken place and that the Synod has determined that they constitute a religious crime.

As per the guidance issued previously, the only way that the Synod could influence or prevent the ensuing trial would be if the General Assembly passed a judgement of vindication. If that was worded appropriately, then it would override any previous judgement of condemnation by the Synod.

Further Reading

A little understanding - 386YE Winter wind of fortune discussing the initial repercussions of the peaceful decision Malign spiritual presences