Power struggle or cooperation, whatever perspective we choose on this system the general trend was clear: theology first became key to executions and their message, but later dwindled in importance. This could be understood as an initially weak state needing the church to bolster its position, and then as its power grew and the church weakened or split into different confessions, the need was less strong. However, it could equally be that the dismantlement was not primarily related to the role of the church in the society or even the messages conveyed, but instead to a sensibility among a social elite who increasingly abhorred the viewing and thus the publicity of public executions.174 Important to remember is that the churches discussed here mostly were established churches, working in close conjunction with the state. Churches with such relationship, also often more or less headed by rulers or governments, generally tend to support the positions of the state or, prominently in democracies, generally accepted the contemporary positions. Churches that opposed the state in this respect probably also opposed it in other questions.175 From a pastoral perspective, some amount of time for preparation was important, because the moment of death not only was significant to society, but also could be important for eternity. Both the church and the delinquents who longed for heaven generally saw preparation as important. Hopefully it would help them on the way to heaven. Pastoral perspective, church, and salvation were not always of interest for those arranging executions, however. Krischer has found concerning the medieval execution that alimit between trial and execution often cannot be discerned. The execution was merely a continuation of the proceedings.176 Then hardly any time, if any, was available for preparation. The preparation for the execution the execution and its message 174 See also Taïeb 2015 p 133 sqq. 175 McLeod 2004 p 350 sqq. 176 Krischer 2017 p 87 sq. 69
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=