Friar Lawrence Is a Leader Guilty of Malicious

The sample paper on Friar Lawrence Essay familiarizes the reader with the topic-related facts, theories and approaches. Scroll down to read the entire paper.

Imagine a scenario in which:

• you trust the leader of a contingency, like a president or a king,
• this person offers you misguided advice,
• you suffer greatly as a result of said advice, and
• this man or woman you trust continues to hurt you with more egregious errors.

Perhaps you are thinking of George W. Bush, when he sent a country in recession to war on credit two times in a row.

Maybe my hypothetical situation is reminiscent of poor parenting a father works late in the office for five consecutive days, but keeps forgetting to transport his daughter from daycare.

Now, I cannot Imagine that Bush spent large sums on his presidential campaign with the Intent of poorly managing the united States. Likewise, the hypothetical father who neglects his child probably wanted to make more money for his family.

However, as I will argue in this paper, a person who assumes the role of confidant or leader is guilty of malignant if they continue to facilitate harmful effects. Friar Laurence, a religious official in the prestigious and holy Order of SST. Francis, was a leader with malignant.

He acted as a figure of neutrality between the Montague ND Capsules, yet took actions that harmed both families and ultimately resulted In the death of Romeo and Juliet. Against his better judgment, Friar Laurence impassively married Romeo and Juliet without the blessing of either family.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Romeo And Juliet

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Either unable or unwilling to learn from his earlier mistakes, Friar Laurence devised a poorly planned plot to save Juliet from her engagement to Paris. Worst of all, Friar Laurence trusted an incapable person, Friar John, with a message that could have saved the lives of Romeo and Juliet.

Friar Laurence first poor decision was to marry Romeo and Juliet. In act five, scene three, and lines 232-235, the friar eloquently downplays the severity of his mistake: “l married them, and their stolen marriage day was Table’s doomsday, whose untimely death banished the new-made bridegroom from this city… ” With the skill of a trapped politician, Friar Laurence quickly summarizes his wrongdoing, which In turn will cause the listener (the prince) to assume less guilt.

If a District Attorney were present, he or she might have asked Friar Laurence why he did to confront the Montague and Capsules before marrying young children, particularly when such a union could result in upheaval. There was certainly an assumption of risk when Romeo and Juliet were married, and any reasonable person could have predicted resulting conflict. A religious leader might have prompted Romeo and Juliet to confront their respect families, profess their undying love for each other, and ask permission to marry. By sneaking around, Friar Laurence changed the fate of the entire story.

Romeo and Juliet cannot be held equally expansible because they were young and without authority; it was up to Friar Laurence to act appropriately when given the power of responsibility. The friar did not forewarn the young couple, either. Instead, he bought into their juvenile ideals of romance. In act 2, scene 6, lines 36-37, he says “For, by your leaves, you shall not stay alone / Till holy church Incorporate two In one. ” Such encouragement Is hardly good Friar Laurence devised a plan to fake Gullet’s death, then later send for Romeo. Today, such behavior is known as conspiracy to pseudoscience.

Though this is not inherently a criminal act, it is dishonest (covering for the false death of another), it causes massive suffering (imagine those who cared for Juliet), and it will perpetually create negative consequences. In act five, scene three, and lines 238-241, the friar explains, “Then she comes to me, and with wild looks bid me devise some mean to rid her from this second marriage, or in my cell there would she kill herself” As a friar, Laurence stepped completely out of his bounds. His duties to Juliet should have been limited to motional and spiritual guidance.

Imagine a suicide prevention hotlist, which often faces situations similar to Friar Laurence. If a modern Juliet called a suicide specialist, it would be the specialist’s duty to remove access to convenient methods of suicide, or perhaps use optimism to promote mental resilience. However, the instant you offer poison to a suicidal adolescent girl for purposes of faking her own death, it should be clear that you are acting very inappropriately. Friar Laurence trusted Friar John with a letter that could have saved Romeos life.

Most people who heavily invest themselves in the affairs of others bear a moral duty to their well-being. If I personally had married Romeo and Juliet, acted as their confidant, devised Gullet’s escape plan without telling Romeo, and knew full well that my influence had already played a hand in death and chaos, then I would certainly take it upon myself to protect Romeo and Gullet’s lives with my best ability. However, Friar Laurence relegated this responsibility to Friar John, who knew nothing of the situation’s severity and ultimately failed to deliver the letter.

When summarizing this event, Friar Laurence delicately removed all traces of guilt from the parties involved: “But he which bore my letter, Friar John, was stayed by accident and westernizes returned my letter back… ” (Romeo and Juliet, 5. 3, 249-251). It is clear that Friar Laurence is negligent, rather than malicious. Unfortunately, though, he never confessed to his percentage of fault. Instead, he tells the prince, “And if aught in this miscarried by my fault, let my old life be sacrificed, some hour before his time, unto the rigor of severest law” (Romeo and Juliet, 5. 265-268). This halfhearted attempt at accountability is carefully placed at the end of his explanation. By taking an apologetic approach with the prince, yet carefully minimizing his role in the tragedy, Friar Laurence pried himself from the Jaws of suspicion and left a free man. If he were truly guilty, or truly felt emotionally connected to Romeo and Gullet’s death, he would have been more forthcoming. If I were guilt-ridden, I surely would have confessed my role in events, thus allowing for a fair sentence to be made.

After the friar’s testimonial, the prince is convinced that Laurence is still a holy man. But as members of a democratic and modern free world, we must ask: would a Just system grant amnesty to a man who extended himself to two young and hopeful children, only to repeatedly betray their trust and fail them in the end? If you believe in a fair world, or even if you are simply moved emotionally by the loving, passionate characters of Romeo and Juliet, I am sure that you will agree that Friar Laurence is a leader who is guilty of malignant.