FORKNI-L
Digest - 16 Jul 2013 to 19 Jul 2013 (#2013-113)
Fri, 19 Jul 2013
There are 6 messages totaling 392 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. "For I Have Sinned" & Nick's Catholic upbringing (1/2) (3)
2. "For I Have Sinned" & Nick's Catholic upbringing (2/2)
3. Natalie's Wardrobe From Season 1 Thru Season 3
4. Photos of Susan's FK dolls
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:08:35 -0400
From: Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Re: "For I Have Sinned" & Nick's Catholic upbringing (1/2)
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:16:01, Barbara Stone wrote:
> What is the history of the sacred secrecy of the confessional?
> Does that go back to 1228? Assuming that it does, it seems to
> me that his and Stonetree's disagreement has less to do with
> religion than with frustrated detective working a case v. police
> captain who must uphold the rules by which the detection game
> is played.
As far as the dramatic conflict between Nick and Stonetree is concerned, I
think you're right. However, you bring up history....
This is actually quite an interesting question. According to the Wikipedia
article on "Priest-penitent privilege", the rule that priests mustn't repeat
what they hear in confession goes back at least to the early 12th century, a
century before Nick was brought over. He would therefore be familiar with
the "seal of the confessional", since it held during his lifetime. As
Wikipedia describes the church's position, "In a criminal matter, a priest
may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the
extent of the leverage they wield. They may not directly or indirectly
disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves."
Nevertheless, the Wikipedia article immediately goes on to say, "The
doctrine of priest-penitent privilege is respected to varying degrees by the
laws of different nations."
One need consider, then, the interaction between church law and civil law.
Therein (sort-of) lies the conflict in "For I Have Sinned". Rochefort is
bound by church law to say nothing that might betray the penitent. It does
*not* follow, though, that he is similarly bound by Canadian law. Resorting
once again to Wikipedia: "religious communication is covered by common law"
in the Province of Ontario.
So what does common law say on the matter of the seal of the confessional?
Back we go again to the font of all wisdom. (Er...to Wikipedia, that is.)
Which says that, in a case from 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada decided
that, "Religious communications are not presumptively (prima facie)
privileged." The court established that a test proposed by John Henry
Wigmore be used to provide a general framework to decide, on a case-by-case
basis, whether a particular communication is or is not privileged.
In other words, under common law in Canada, for the communication to be
privileged, the following four conditions must be met:
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be
disclosed
2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and
satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties
3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to
be sedulously fostered.
4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the
communication must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the
correct disposal of litigation.
So what does that mean in plain English, and how does it relate to the
events in "For I Have Sinned"?
Well, first off, the Supreme Court ruling was made in 1991: it was
therefore just *before* the date of the show. That means two things: (a)
that it would apply, at least in the real world; but (b) it might well not
be familiar to the writer. Who might well, in any case, ignore it in favour
of suspense--or, more accurately, the specific suspense wanted for the plot.
Still, any fan who wants to delve deeper into the matter (in fan fiction,
for example) can certainly consider the Supreme Court ruling to be
applicable.
So, going through the Wigmore Criteria:
1. Applies: the killer has made confession to a priest, and been assured
by Rochefort that this is confidential.
2. Applies: the killer would never have trusted Rochefort to take his
confession if he thought there were the slightest risk that the priest might
head straight off to tell the police.
3. Applies, too: on the whole, people in the community--especially the
Catholic community--do indeed expect that confession made to a priest is
utterly confidential.
Which brings us to 4. Is the harm done by the priest keeping silent greater
than the harm done by his speaking out? If so, then the communication is
privileged. If, however, more harm would come from his silence, then he is
bound by common law to tell what he knows. That is the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Well, in "For I Have Sinned", we are dealing with a serial murder case. The
critical word here is *serial*. This is not a one-off. The killer has
already killed three times. Furthermore, it is clear--both to us and to
Rochefort--from what the man says in the confessional that he intends to
kill again.
So Criterion No. 4, as it applies to "For I Have Sinned", boils down to
this: which is worse: that someone be murdered, or that the seal of the
confessional be broken? Ultimately, this is the sort of matter that might
wind up in front of a judge. Or, if the conflict be made public, wind up in
the "court of public opinion", i.e. in news reports.
Curiously, the one person who probably *wouldn't* be consulted is the next
victim. (Who might feel very strongly on the matter, for obvious reasons.)
(to be continued)
Greer
gwatson2@r.......
http://www.foreverknight.org/FK4/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:16:06 -0700
From: Andrew Caruthers <slinter@j.......>
Subject: Re: "For I Have Sinned" & Nick's Catholic upbringing (1/2)
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:08:35 -0400 Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
writes:
Well, in "For I Have Sinned", we are dealing with a serial murder case. The
critical word here is *serial*. This is not a one-off. The killer has
already killed three times. Furthermore, it is clear--both to us and to
Rochefort--from what the man says in the confessional that he intends to
kill again.
============================================
Since it seems clear that our killer plans on killing again, he is thus
not truly repentant, and what he says should not be considered
confidential.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:46:55 -0400
From: Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
Subject: Re: "For I Have Sinned" & Nick's Catholic upbringing (2/2)
So...I just spent a long e-mail explaining how the Supreme Court of Canada
decided in 1991 (i.e. prior to "For I Have Sinned") that *potentially*
privileged communications need to be considered in terms of the "Wigmore
Criteria". I went on to point out that, in terms of that episode, it all
boils down to the question of which is worse for society: that Rochefort
break the seal of the confessional, or that the killer be allowed to keep on
murdering people.
But is this question even relevant to "For I Have Sinned? We tend to
*assume* that it is, of course. However, it actually depends on something
that is not at all clear in "For I Have Sinned" as it was written.
I've noticed that this is often true in FK. You watch a really intriguing,
exciting episode; and then afterwards (or even during the show!) you say to
yourself, "But they never really dealt with this...or that...or the
other...which should really have been brought up." I'm not talking about
plot holes, you understand. I'm talking about their relatively superficial
approach to what, in many instances, are tricky ethical issues. Or even
not-so-tricky ones.
How does this apply to "For I Have Sinned"?
Well, we (and "we" seems to include Nick) are assuming that Rochefort can,
indeed, identify the killer. *If* Rochefort knows who he is, then the
Wigmore Criteria are very pertinent indeed. After all, if Rochefort can
name the man to the police, it might be possible to catch him before he
kills again--obviously a matter that is inherently of benefit to society.
Sure, Rochefort and his superiors in the Catholic Church might argue in
court that, rather than undermining the confidentiality of confession, it
would be better that the murderer be allowed to keep on killing people. (If
they did, mind you, I bet their lawyers would try to wrap it up a bit more
prettily. Still, that would be the gist of it.) The *issue*, however, is
obviously of legal significance, and a clear instance where the courts might
well decide that privilege would not apply.
But does Rochefort know who the guy is?
Let's see. The reason the confessional has a screen between the priest and
the penitent is to preserve a measure of anonymity. In hearing any
confession, though, Rochefort might recognize the person's voice or catch
sufficient view through the screen to see who it is. Indeed, in this
instance, when he realizes what he's being told, he tries to peer though the
screen. Does he manage to see the man's face? Or does he simply see that
the other side of the confessional was empty? This is what we know for
certain: Rochefort promptly bolts out, frantically looking around, only to
find no one in the church. It's a big church: it would take the killer a
few seconds to get clear out of the building.
Rochefort then tries to warn Magda. Rather obliquely, for he doesn't want
to say just *why* he thinks she, specifically, is in danger. But he does
try to warn her.
This itself raises questions, for we never hear her named by the killer
during the confession. This could simply be a plot hole, of course.
However, let us try to bridge it. Perhaps, the shorthand of TV is omitting
several prior warnings, and we see only the one pertinent to the plot.
Could Rochefort perhaps have already warned other parishioners who he fears
may be in danger? As for his picking Magda as one of the potential victims:
he obviously knows she is a sex-trade worker; and guessing that someone in
that line of work might be a potential victim is not hard. Neither Nick nor
Stonetree presses Rochefort to explain why he warned Magda, specifically.
What they really want to know is whether Rochefort can name the killer.
Perhaps, when Stonetree asks Rochefort if there is any way he can help,
Rochefort really can't. Perhaps, when Nick keeps badgering him, there
really is no way Rochefort can help--though Nick naturally has trouble
accepting the fact, given the nature of the case. Perhaps what Rochefort is
really refusing to do is simply provide the *details* of what he heard.
After all, from the police perspective, such details might contain useful
information from which they might deduce more than Rochefort realizes.
Naturally, they need every detail they can get! (Of course, if Rochefort
really is only refusing to repeat the killer's exact words, he manages
nevertheless to leave the impression that he could tell the police quite a
lot more.)
If all Rochefort can do is provide a few odd, possibly irrelevant details,
then the Wigmore Criteria would probably support the confidentiality of the
confession he heard. *Only* if he knows the killer's name does the matter
of common law clearly come into play.
Of course, in "For I Have Sinned", we are left with the *impression* that
Rochefort knows the killer, could name him to the police, refuses to do so
because of Catholic church law, and is permitted to keep silence because
Stonetree accepts this. This is really only an impression, though: we have
no clear evidence that Rochefort could name the man.
Of course, Supreme Court decision or no, Rochefort's personal position is
clear. Nevertheless, "For I Have Sinned" doesn't really present us with the
ethical dilemma that it seems to.
Greer
gwatson2@r.......
http://www.foreverknight.org/FK4/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:41:05 -0400
From: Lisa Stevens <lstevens39@g.......>
Subject: Natalie's Wardrobe From Season 1 Thru Season 3
I've been having a Forever Knight Marathon late at night for the past week
because it's been so hot here and I was talking with a friend of mine who
is a huge FK fan but she has never been on the list we ended up discussing
Natalie's wardrobe during all three season and we both noticed that Nat's
clothes got darker each episode. I don't remember if this has ever been
brought up here on the list but has anyone ever noticed that Natalie's
wardrobe went from the bright colors in season one to more dark browns and
black colors in seasons two and three.
Lisa Hobbs Stevens
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:24:26 -0400
From: Lisa Stevens <lstevens39@g.......>
Subject: Re: "For I Have Sinned" & Nick's Catholic upbringing (1/2)
I just watched For I Have Sinned a few days ago Andrew you are right it was
a serial murder case. This is a great episode for an ethics discussion.
Clearly there is the church law or I guess doctrine would be better word
to use which does say the priest is bound by the confidentional
confessional which makes that privileged we do know the killer did confess
to Rochefort but it's clear to Rochefort and also to us the audience that
what this killer has just confessed and what he goes on to say is that he
is intending to kill again now whether or not the killer is asking for
forgiveness or absolution from God or is wanting help to stop him from
killing is pure conjecture. Now we know Rochefort is not bound by
Canadian law to go to the police but we can tell he is also torn by his
personal code of ethics because on one hand here you have a someone who has
just confessed to you that he has killed and is intending to kill again and
you are bound bu church doctrine to keep it confidential. Then on the
other hand you also want to help save a life of another potential victim
and get the killing to stop. This line where ones conscious, personal
beliefs and ethics come all into play and collide with both the church
doctrine and the law enforcement and the legal system as a whole.
Rochefort made the only decision he could possibly make on matter.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Caruthers <slinter@j.......> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:08:35 -0400 Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......>
> writes:
>
> Well, in "For I Have Sinned", we are dealing with a serial murder case. The
> critical word here is *serial*. This is not a one-off. The killer has
> already killed three times. Furthermore, it is clear--both to us and to
> Rochefort--from what the man says in the confessional that he intends to
> kill again.
> ============================================
> Since it seems clear that our killer plans on killing again, he is thus
> not truly repentant, and what he says should not be considered
> confidential.
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:55:37 -0400
From: Lisa Stevens <lstevens39@g.......>
Subject: Re: Photos of Susan's FK dolls
Greer I remember seeing the dolls, etc but I don't think I have any pics
of them saved on this PC
Hey Greer I've got a quick question for you can we even get the FK T-Shirts
& Affiliation Pins made anymore ?
Lisa Hobbs Stevens
lstevens39@g.......
lstevens@fullsail.edu
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Greer Watson <gwatson2@r.......> wrote:
> Once upon a time, long long ago (*g*), Susan Garrett had a website,
> "Susan's Bookshelf", at http://www.vitinc.com/~susang
>
> Now, I have almost all the site intact, including pages about the
> Affiliation Pins and an FK T-shirt design.
>
> However, she used to have a small section about a collection of Barbie and
> Ken dolls (representing Janette and Nick) that she had made or been given.
> These dolls had been dressed in FK costumes from various historical periods.
> I have the main page, with thumbnails of all the photographs. However, I'm
> missing about half of the full-sized pictures.
>
> Are there any doll lovers out there who maybe saved these pictures? It
> would be nice if people could get a *good* look at them!
>
>
> Greer
>
> gwatson2@r.......
> http://www.foreverknight.org/FK4/
>
>
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 16 Jul 2013 to 19 Jul 2013 (#2013-113)
***************************************************************
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
