genarti: Fountain pen lying on blank paper, nib in close focus. ([misc] ink on the page)
[personal profile] genarti
Okay, I have a question for the Catholics and/or historical scholars around these parts! I am working on a fic, and the one scene that's keeping it from being finished is hung up on the fact that I know nothing about what confession would have been like for a Sister of Charity in France in the 1820s. I don't mean the exact rite -- I can find the Latin, but I can also write around that part; what I need to figure out are the relevant attitudes.

Google is no help, or I am insufficiently good at Google, because all I can find are a) very general modern explanations of confession, or b) equally modern encouragements for Catholics to go to confession more often. And being raised Episcopalian is in this case no use at all. So I turn to fandom at large.

My question is, of course, about Sister Simplice. My story picks up right after she tells her one major lie on Valjean's behalf, and covers some time afterwards, and it necessarily involves her going directly to talk to the curé of the parish about Valjean's money and Fantine and so forth. I don't need to write the confession scene, necessarily, but I need to know if she would have immediately taken confession about her lie, or what.

How does this work if you repent the sin but don't regret the act? What counts as contrition for this purpose? Are there other dimensions to consider in the church structure, with a non-cloistered nun and a parish priest, which would affect the timing or the fact of the confession? HOW DOES THIS WORK I DON'T KNOOOOW. I don't need 100% certainty, but I do need general plausibility, and I don't feel at all secure about what is and isn't plausible. All assistance gratefully welcomed! (All tangents also welcomed, on general principles.)
melannen: Commander Valentine of Alpha Squad Seven, a red-haired female Nick Fury in space, smoking contemplatively (Default)
[personal profile] melannen
I have just conquered Waterloo!

What Hugo seems to be trying to say in these chapters, as best I can tell (in that he says it outright over and over in slightly different words, although this being Hugo he also says many other things some of which are contradictory) is that the outcome of the battle was due, not to one general being better than another or one army being stronger, but due to the fact that Fate had turned against Napoleon (fate/destiny/luck/the will of God/natural law/the Force/narrative causality/the balance of the universe/whatever you want to call it.)

And ignoring if I can the question of actual reality - which apparently has only a loose relationship to Hugo's Waterloo anyway - I am fascinated by this argument, and especially the way we get it right after Valjean's desperate ride to Arras. )

Anyway! I have many thoughts on Waterloo! Does anyone have any thoughts on Waterloo to share?

(Also other people should post other stuff to this comm or else it'll just be me going on about Waterloo until I'm worse than Victor Hugo! I can post on Waterloo all week if you make me. I HAVE THE MATERIAL.)

Profile

les_miserables: Cosette with a tricolor background, ie the musical logo (Default)
Let's all be miserable together!

May 2014

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:02 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios