Humanities desk
< January 23	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 24[edit]

Impromptu Masses[edit]

The recent major blizzard in the eastern USA stranded lots of people on lots of highways, and numerous news sources are talking about one specific incident: a group of Catholic students, with a priest from the Dakotas as one of the chaperones, wanted to worship together while stuck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bedford County, so the students gathered snow to form an altar, and the priest celebrated Mass. Story, if you're interested. Questions:

When a priest travels outside the diocese of which his parish is a component, does he normally need permission from the local ordinary to celebrate Mass? And if so, is there an exception for extraordinary circumstances, like this one? Bedford County is in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, but given the weather and similar issues, I don't imagine them being able to reach Bishop Mark Bartchak just to get special permission for a Mass.
Given the number of items (candles, for example) used in a typical Mass, and the absence of ordinary altar materials along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I'm left wondering about the details. Does canon law make exceptions for "emergency" situations in which the faithful desire a Mass and some of the components are missing? And can the priest consecrate the snow pile as an altar? Altar (Catholicism) mentions the universal use of altars (I don't imagine that anyone's going to compare this priest to Theodore, Bishop of Tyre, celebrating Mass on the hands of his deacons), but I didn't see anything here about temporary altars.

Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thought. Maybe they are using the word "mass" loosely? Not so much of a "real" mass, as much as it is a priest simply leading them in prayer? Perhaps? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go,a full discussion of it.Basically,yes he can.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=798119 Hotclaws (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the paraphernalia required, see Communion Travel Kit. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I've just found a "value" version in cardboard and plastic for GBP 14.72 (= USD 21.00) with free delivery. Seems to be aimed at the Protestant market though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per my informant, a mass has to be celebrated with an altar, as noted above, and an altar requires the presence of at least a third-order relic. First-order relics include body parts, second-order relics are things such as belongings, and third-order relics are "associated" with a saint. See Catholic relic. The source for this comment is my father, who was educated by Jesuits before Vatican II; so take my comment for what it is. But he says most priests carry third-order relics, and one can be assured Vatican II did not make that requirement stricter. Also, what news source is going to enquire whether the priest was carrying a relic? μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any serial killers, spree killers, or mass murderers that span across generations in a family?[edit]

Regarding serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers: are there any examples of such killers that span a generation? In other words, as an example, the father was a serial killer, and the son ended up being one, also. I specify serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers simply to distinguish them from "garden variety" and "everyday" typical murders. I am quite sure there are a lot of parents/children who would fall into that latter category. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're counting those who were never arrested and just called the shots, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush come to mind. Dracula also had a son in 1943. Francis Paul Weaver's father and grandfather were both convicted of double murders, then he was charged with another. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar and his adoptive son Augustus? Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan? If you include state crimes, there are many examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, if you include organised crime (and the variant of it sometimes called "business"), there should be many examples. I'm quite sure that the business of the Atlantic slave trade was passed down the family line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I never thought about organized crime and the Mafia, etc. I am sure they must run across generations of same-family killers. But, I guess that is more of a "business enterprise", rather than a random act of murder (like a Ted Bundy or a Jeffrey Dahmer). I think? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very witty (and true) but I doubt this is what the OP is looking for. "More matter, with less art", is likely to be more useful to the OP, if that's your goal. Now this is probably not going to satisfy the OP either, but I'll offer it anyway: Pándy András with his daughter (and incestuous lover) Ágnes. The problem with this case is probably that they were accomplices in one killing spree, not independent killers several years or decades apart. Contact Basemetal here 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the obvious BLP violation in referring to our presidents as "serial killers", the definition of a serial killer is pretty specific and narrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to imply they're mass murderers, not serial killers. They technically aren't, so I didn't technically refer to them as such. I'm technically innocent. Besides, BLP is looser about public figures, especially when the claim's already out there. Vincent Bugliosi is 21-0 at prosecuting murders, put Manson away for not technically killing anyone and wrote The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they weren't mass murderers either. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is one of the several cases of people with a liberal agenda trying to push their POV here. Scicurious (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every liberal considers their president to be a serial killer. Warfare, capital punishment and abortion may be homicides of a sort, but legally they are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, these are almost certainly not the kind of cases the OP was looking for. When about to give a query a clever and entertaining answer think whether it may not also take the whole thread on a tangent and in the end deny the OP answers that would have been of interest to him. Contact Basemetal here 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The legendary Sawney Bean was a 17th century Scottish alleged serial killer, whose whole family - wife, children and grandchildren - were said to have participated in mass murder. To be fair, the victims were eaten by the family afterwards, which seems less wasteful somehow. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. After reading the responses, I re-read my original question. And I guess I was not clear. So, to clarify: I am looking for multiple generations of the same family who committed the crimes a generation apart. Not family members who "worked together" on the same crime. For example, something like this: Ted Bundy was a serial killer in 1980; his son became a serial killer in 2000. Stuff like that. Not a father and son -- together -- went out and did serial killings. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Weaver Jr. killed two or more victims in multiple locations with almost no time break between murders. Seems to make him a spree killer, by FBI standards. 21 years later, his kid did much the same, just with a longer break between victims. If you need them to be serial killers, I know of no third murder for the latter, but it wouldn't be surprising, given all the times he was caught assaulting and raping girls over the decades. As for his dad, there's a certain vibe of habit one gives off when murdering young hitchhikers, rather than a garden-variety wife, business partner or drug dealer. Just hunches, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Ward Weaver III: the article says that the son only committed that one murder. Were there more? The article says: On February 17, 2014, Weaver's son Francis was arrested and charged with murder. He and three others had allegedly robbed and killed a drug dealer in Canby, Oregon the day prior. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added that part yesterday, thanks to this thread. Nothing proven in court on him, so far. But Junior is III's dad, not his son. Those are the two I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the answer is that nobody has found one and they're trying to be helpful by mentioning cases that are similar to the one you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Odnacheva, son of Andrei Chikatilo, was arrested for murder in 2009, but that was only one murder, not 109. There are a few father/son (and mother/son) pairings listed at Category:Criminal duos, but that doesn't satisfy the criterion of separate crimes. Tevildo (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While violence "breeding" violence (and so to with sexual assault) isn't uncommon, one of the more extreme cases albeit not fitting the OP's requirements seems to be the case of Thomas Soria Sr. et al. Thomas Soria Sr. was molested by his stepbrother at a young age. About 10 years later his stepbrother then went on to sexually assault, torture and murder the stepmother (i.e. Thomas Soria Sr.'s mother) who's body was found by Thomas Soria Sr. A few years later, an uncle of the stepbrother killed 3 and wounded 9 after a minor dispute in a bar. Thomas Soria Sr. has a son who he sexually assaults. He later sexual assaults his son's girlfriends, and even gets his new wife to also have sex wih the son. Eventually he demands the son (now a young adult) bring him a girl and the son promptly obeys bringing him a young girl who someone probably Sr ends up murdering, a murder they both definitely tried to cover up [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy scenario! I only quickly scanned those links. I will read them more closely later. But who exactly is the Mozingo guy from your third link? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the uncle of the step brother. The step brother who murdered Soria Sr's mother. Some sources call him the step-uncle of Soria Sr, but I'm not sure whether they had much relationship even before the mother's murder however it's possible they did. From the surnames, I'm guessing Douglas was the brother of the stepbrother's father/Soria's stepfather. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have much relationship after the mother's murder. (But I don't really know, although already an adult, the stepfather was part of Soria Sr's life for quite a while before the murder. So it's possible Soria Sr maintained seem sort of relationship with the stepfather and/or other members of the family after the mother's murder.) Douglas himself killed 3 people but this happened after the stepbrother murdered Soria Sr's mother. The story would probably be a little easier to understand if I used the other names, but I've avoided naming people who are possibly alive even those who are murderers. Both Soria Sr and Douglas are dead, according to official sources from suicide. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, what a crazy family tree. Hard to keep track of all the twists and turns. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several historic dynasties were reputed to kill for political purposes or to get rid of people who annoyed them. Consider the Ceasars as described by Suetonius, sometimes having people killed for various reasons in extrajudicial killings (though maybe the emperor had absolute power). Weren't some of them in a direct descent, or through uncle/nephew/grandson relationship? Consider the ruling dynasty in North Korea. Consider the royal families of Europe in days of old. There seem to be complex genealogical links between rulers, some of whom also had convenient murders done for their benefit . William II of England was killed in a fake "hunting accident" which benefited his younger brother.ThePrinces in the Tower were murdered long after for dynastic reasons. Was the Norman dynasty Henry I of England who had William killed an ancestor of the House of York Richard III of England who likely had the princes killed? Many kings of Scotland were murdered to aid dynastic ambitions of inbred royalty. (Not that I have any complaint against royals inbreeding, as long as they keep it in the family). There have been inns where travelers checked in but did not check out such as the famous cave at Cave-In-Rock, Illinois. The murder and piracy were family affairs and continued for decades, but there might have been replacement of one family by another. The Hatfield–McCoy feud involved uncles killing people and their nephews killing people many years later, so it might qualify. Edison (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the middle ages, how did they enforce serfdom?[edit]

What stopped a serf from moving to another place? Obviously, he would be destitute, but couldn't he just go work to another feudal lord, or go to a monastery? What would prevent an exchange of serfs? If some manor needed a milkmaid and the other a strong peasant, couldn't they come to an agreement, if each of both serfs where at a place where they were not needed? --Scicurious (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under English law, a villein could exchanged between lords (with both lords' consent). He would be free after living (openly) in London or a royal borough for a year and a day, but his lord could prevent this by force. A villein who went to work for a new lord could be retrieved by his previous lord in the courts, using the writ of neifty (de nativo habendo) against the villein's new lord. Tevildo (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the relevant section (in translation) from Comyns' Digest. Tevildo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serfs could be exchanged, but they would be included with the land to which they were attached - for example, if a lord sold a piece of his land to someone else (another lord, or the church), the sale could include the people who lived and worked there. I'm not sure if serfs were ever traded like modern athletes, actually leaving one territory for another, since they were considered to be "tied to the land". And sometimes serfdom couldn't be enforced, for example after the Black Death. See Consequences of the Black Death#Impact on peasants and the Peasants' Revolt in England. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did serfs even consider leaving? Didn't they stay in the same restricted area their whole lives? Wouldn't anyplace else be terra incognita, strange and somewhat terrifying? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think this is really important, and very hard for us moderns to grok. Hard to find refs for this kind of claim though, maybe someone else can help out? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find out what serfs thought about anything, since they typically didn't write things down, and the people who did write things down didn't really care to find out what the serfs thought. I don't think they were that much different from us though. You can imagine travelling to somewhere you've never been, so why couldn't they? They're still human. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but humans with no real knowledge about or experience with the rest of the world and without the resources and safeguards we mostly take for granted. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most European countries had laws against vagrancy in an effort to stop people wandering about on the offchance that somebody might employ them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom survived among Scottish miners until 1799, so not the Middle Ages, but there are interesting examples here of colliery owners placing newspaper adverts regarding absconded serfs. Warofdreams talk 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And their children inherited that state? Contact Basemetal here 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The juridical jargon used in related cases shows [7] that it could be made effective when deemed necessary. In various ways, it is also interesting to note how the origins of the statute lay in the necessity for the state to have the taxes properly collected [8]. --Askedonty (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The serf had no or almost no capital to bring with him, and the lord had no or almost no free land to give him. This is why the monasteries and free cities were so important. The Black death was hugely important in making day labor a liberating factor to otherwise serfs who'd've starved to death prior to the plague. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]