Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 December 4

= December 4 =

Pirate capture of a man-of-war
I asked this at the talk page of Bartholomew Roberts to no answer, so I thought I'd ask here. I begin with a quote from that article:

During this time, Roberts caught the Governor of Martinique, who was sailing aboard a man-of-war. Robert's ship pulled up next to the man-of-war pretending to be a French merchant ship, and offered information on the location of Captain Roberts before suddenly attacking it, spraying the warship with cannon and small arms fire, after which the pirates boarded it and took it over using pistols and cutlasses. The Governor was caught and promptly hanged on the yardarm of the Royal Fortune.

What was the governor's name? According to List of colonial and departmental heads of Martinique this would be one "de Hurault" but we don't have an article on him or even a full name. What was the name of the Man of War he was caught on? Was this an otherwise notable ship? What did Roberts do with the ship after capturing the governor? A Man of War is quite the prize for a pirate to have taken, so I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned. And finally, was there some reason Roberts had it out for this governor? Presumably he had some serious motivation to attack such a powerful warship. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This site (whose reliability is unknown) claims he made that his flagship. Other google searches on the general subject suggest he was constantly at war with these islands, so hanging the governor seemed fitting. With that "dreaded pirate Roberts" stuff, I keep seeing The Princess Bride in my mind's eye. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Queen Anne's Revenge, which was basically a sailing frigate, is often mentioned as huge for an 18th century pirate ship. Larger ships are frequently cited as being impractical for piracy due to the difficulty manning them and the lack of infrastructure for maintaining them (not to mention the lack of speed and maneuverability required for pursing a prize). So given that people typically mention Queen Anne's if talking about "large" pirate ships, rather than this behemoth, I'm skeptical of any claim he took it as a flagship. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a transcription of an official British report mentioning the event (scroll down, April 25, Bermuda, 463iii). .Leeward Islands, April 23rd. On 26th March Capt. Hingston Commander of a ship belonging to London in her way to Jamaica was taken about 4 leagues S. of Antigua by John Roberts Commander of a pirate ship of 42 guns and a briganteen of 18 with 262 white men and 50 negroes in both carryed to Burbuda ... The pirate ship had been a French man of war some small time before taken by Roberts in her way from Martinique to France with the Governor of Martinique on board who the pirates hanged at the yard arm etc. .  So Roberts allegedly had an 18-gun brig and the 42-gun captured French warship in March. Note that the same April 25 entry, higher up, describes how on Feb. 18, 1721, a pirate ship of 32 guns, comanded by one Jon. Roberts, and a brigantine of 18 with 350 men in both, capture a "Dutch interloper" of 30 guns at St. Lucia and refit it with 36 guns.  So, by mid-February he has the brig, a 32-gun ship 'and' a Dutch 30/36.  If nothing else, this could provide a citation for the capture and hanging of the governor. It certainly does suggest that he had access to ships that were approximately equal in gun numbers to 'Queen Anne's Revenge (40 cannon), although it obviously doesn't tell us the calibre or type of guns, total weight of broadside or the actual size of the ships themselves. - Ka renjc (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a search using various possible French terms but was not able to find anything that corroborates the story from the French side, apart from mirrors and translations of the article on Roberts. Which is strange, since a governor (by definition an aristocrat) executed by pirates should have left some traces in the historiography. The Governor "de Hurault" mentioned above seems to have been one "Florimond de Hurault", but there is no indication that he met a tragic end or left much of a trace. So it's possible the executed person was not the Governor of Martinique, but someone else who may have been described as such in order to make him appear more important than he was. This would require looking at vintage documents to elucidate further, however. --Xuxl (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Florimond Hurault was appointed governor of Martinique on 21 August 1719 or on 22 August 1719 (scroll down to Hurault de Chiverny). His successor was named in 1721. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

US conference of Catholic Bishops and Abortion
I was shocked by the news that USCCB (US conference of Catholic Bishops) sponsored hospitals issued a directive, pervading their doctors from giving the best medical solution so long as it violates the Catholic teaching. The recent news said that a catholic hospital denied a certain woman of her basic medical rights when the doctors found out that abortion was the best solution. The doctors did not even told the woman about her medical situation. I think this was a measure of that Catholic hospital to fool the woman into the thinking that she was only experiencing a minor medical predicament, and she can survive without needing abortion. I haven’t heard other Catholic hospitals in other countries having the same directive. In fact, some Catholic forums say that if the woman avails abortion on the grounds of maternal health, it is morally acceptable. But this USCCB says otherwise.

Most countries have their own Catholic Bishops Conference. IMHO these CBC’s are somehow autonomous, in such sense that they can issue their own directives based on what they think agrees with the Pope’s words (please correct me if I’m wrong). My Question is – Are there “Catholic Bishops Conferences” in other countries accepting abortion on the grounds of maternal health?49.144.142.14 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, the IP address is referring to this story. The IP has accurately represented the claims of the plaintiff in a lawsuit, although the USCCB has more or less refused comment. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems an obvious solicitation to debate. Even the final "question" smuggles in the premise that an abortion was necessary here.  We don't have the facts, and children do survive, with bed rest and luck, when the water breaks early. (This would have been the first week of the fifth month.) It certainly doesn't seem this woman wanted bed rest to save the child--either that or she was not advised to take bed rest, which seems unlikely.  So there's no chance at all we are going to be able to comment on the policies of other conferences in such circumstances, when the circumstances here are so muddied. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I spent some time looking into this, and I believe the answer to your question is "no". The Catholic policy on abortion has been set by the Popes and the Second Vatican Council, and argues that abortion should not be permitted even to ensure the health of the mother (see Catholic Church and abortion). However, Catholic law, specifically Canon 1398, does specify that certain medical procedures that kill a fetus, but whose purpose is something else, may be permitted. Such exceptions include removing a fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy, or removal of a cancerous uterus. I also spent time searching through both Google and Wikipedia for opinions of Bishops or Bishopric conferences (see our list of articles on such at Episcopal Conference), yet I could not find any conference that condones abortion for the health of the mother, even in nations that are generally pro-choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, which exception implies there was likely some other factor, such as the hospital's possibly having recommended bed rest, which we are rightly not privilege to due to her privacy. The reports seem to imply they did remove the fetus when it actually did come down to her life or death. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It certainly is peculiar, since the news reports seem to say she is suing the USCCB for medical malpractice, rather than the hospital. 86.164.26.129 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Judgment Day (Last Judgment).
Is there indeed going to be Judgment Day someday? Applies to the whole world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The bureaucracy for judging billions of people who currently live on the planet, as well as all those in the past, would take too long - much longer than a day. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jehovah’s Witnesses have published information about "Judgment Day" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002547.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. The stars will cool, and all that will be left is a frozen, dead universe.  Joy, love and purpose itself will die out with the rest of life and nothing will be left to even remember that anyone ever did or felt anything at all. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no way to know until it happens (or doesn't happen). Thus, there is no factual answer possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's today.  Haven't you noticed? μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Old fake headline: "The world ended today! More on this story tomorrow!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignore the previous ignoramuses (ignoramai?). There have been a lot of Judgment Days, many of them profitable. (The 1991 one was fairly entertaining.) I have no doubt there will be another coming along sometime, possibly to a theater near you and in worldwide release. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are calling my response ingnoramity, CF, I find it odd someone would think today's acts are not judged. Every day is judgment day. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nah, not you. Didn't you notice the plural form? I was referring to those who answered in the negative. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Every day is judgment day? Right.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)