Ship of Fools: Rules of the confessional

Thread: Rules of the confessional - crap TV Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020444

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

*** Spoilers for UK TV series Hard Sun, episode 3 ***

So, I'm watching a vaguely interesting BBC drama called Hard Sun. I think they've mangled the rules of the confessional, but I'm interested to know whether others (especially practising Roman Catholics or those more well-versed in Catholic theology than I am) agree.

Relevant plot line -

For various reasons, a guy called Thom Blackwood decides to murder "good" people, his first chosen victim being a volunteer at a suicide helpline.

Having murdered her, Thom goes and confesses this (in a confessional in a church) to Father Dennis. Father Dennis tries to reason with Thom, tries to convince Thom to come with him to see a doctor, etc, without success. Thom leaves the church.

Police notice Father Dennis hanging round the first murder scene looking glum and decide to follow him.

Father Dennis phones Thom and asks to meet with him again. Thom agrees to meet in an isolated abandonned old building. Unbeknown to either, police officer is still following Father Dennis and so steps in to save Father Dennis when Thom gets very close to murdering him (strangling with a ligature). Thoms runs off.

Thom murders another victim and there's plenty of evidence for the police to be connecting the two actual murders and the attempted murder of Father Dennis.

Father Dennis sits in a police interview room being lectured about how the murderer is on a spree and if Father Dennis doesn't tell the police who the murderer is then more people will certainly die. Father Dennis refuses to identify the person in question.

EH??????????? Surely the sacredness and secrecy of the confessional just covers what is said within the confessional? Father Dennis can't reveal that Thom confessed to the first murder, but surely it's not breaking the seal of the confessional to say, "The bloke who was trying to murder me - a number of hours after he left the confessional and my church - on a secular site - who could have no grounds to think I was still bound by the seal of the confessional at that time - was Thom Blackwood"?? Surely the seal of the confessional doesn't equate to a need to cover-up all interrelated wrongdoing of somebody who has confessed one particular sin whilst in the confessional? Am I missing something or is this just one of too many examples of TV researchers and script-writers simplifying things they don't understand for dramatic purposes?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I thought that (as with doctors, psychiatrists, and school counselors) that if someone else's life is in imminent danger they are obliged to report to the authorities? Surely if you went into the confessional and expressed your intent to knife your husband tonight after dinner, the priest would be bound to intervene?

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I thought that (as with doctors, psychiatrists, and school counselors) that if someone else's life is in imminent danger they are obliged to report to the authorities? Surely if you went into the confessional and expressed your intent to knife your husband tonight after dinner, the priest would be bound to intervene?

No. They can withhold absolution, but I thought the deal is that Catholic priests never, ever, ever reveal what was said in the confessional (and in countries where there are 'mandatory reporting' laws, the Catholic priests are probably meant to be more bothered about their religious duties than the state's laws). My issue with the TV programme is that I think they are stretching the definition of "what's said in the confessional" well beyond breaking point, but want to check whether this is the case.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

A 'strong' interpretation of the seal would include the fact that a confession had been heard - and by this line it would break the seal to say that a confession had been heard.

But it is only that information gained under the seal that is protected by the seal. So there is no reason that a priest threatened after the conclusion of the rite could not name the person threatening them.

Though if the threat was made during a confession, it would be covered - though in that circumstance it might be considered more than reasonable to stop... (and presumably absolution pronounced after coercion by such threats would be invalid as the threats would show a lack of contrition on the part of the penitent...)

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

My grandmother used to say—albeit somewhat facetiously and more with regard to personal stories—never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Writers of whatever kind stretching reality or just plain getting it wrong is nothing new. It’s certainly a regular feature of movies and tv shows with a legal setting.

As long as it’s not so outlandish that the willing suspension of disbelief is all but impossible for the average (not knowledgeable) viewer, plot comes first.

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
A 'strong' interpretation of the seal would include the fact that a confession had been heard - and by this line it would break the seal to say that a confession had been heard.

But it is only that information gained under the seal that is protected by the seal. So there is no reason that a priest threatened after the conclusion of the rite could not name the person threatening them.

Though if the threat was made during a confession, it would be covered - though in that circumstance it might be considered more than reasonable to stop... (and presumably absolution pronounced after coercion by such threats would be invalid as the threats would show a lack of contrition on the part of the penitent...)

Yeah. See, in the story in question, the police have guessed that the bloke made a confession because they've got CCTV of the bloke going into the church and coming out again 20 minutes later and I can accept the priest not dislosing whether or not the murderer had formally made a confession. What's peeving me in its lunancy and inaccuracy is the idea that the priest can't withhold information about the formal confession made within the Church confessional whilst disclosing to the police the name of the guy who tried to murder him hours later in a secular setting.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My grandmother used to say—albeit somewhat facetiously and more with regard to personal stories—never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Writers of whatever kind stretching reality or just plain getting it wrong is nothing new. It’s certainly a regular feature of movies and tv shows with a legal setting.

As long as it’s not so outlandish that the willing suspension of disbelief is all but impossible for the average (not knowledgeable) viewer, plot comes first.

Hmmmm. This winds me up because at times I feel it tips over into spreading disinformation. (I maybe feel particularly strongly about this because my professional life is as a children's social worker. I fortunately don't regularly watch any TV soap operas, but have heard that in the past few months, the very popular Eastenders had a portrayal of children's social workers so inaccurate it was likely to be hugely dangerous and potentially harmful (i.e. on the basis of one anonymous phone call, the social workers swooped and removed a housefull of children into stranger foster care without any proper discussion with the parents or children, no due process, no police present etc - something which would be illegal as well as imoral in UK children's social work).) Thinking about it as I type that rant, I wonder if my annoyance is that subjects are treated in patchy and unequal ways. UK entertainment TV like soap operas can sometimes do really excellent work in terms of raising public awareness through well-researched story lines about subjects like domestic abuse and mental ill-health. But then on other occasions, e.g. Hard Sun in relation to Catholicism and Eastenders in relation to children's social workers, any semblance of accuracy or fairness to the group portrayed goes out the window.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Zoey, imagine how physicists feel about the central premise of the programme... [Help]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zoey:
Hmmm. This winds me up because at times I feel it tips over into spreading disinformation. (I maybe feel particularly strongly about this because my professional life is as a children's social worker. I fortunately don't regularly watch any TV soap operas, but have heard that in the past few months, the very popular Eastenders had a portrayal of children's social workers so inaccurate it was likely to be hugely dangerous and potentially harmful (i.e. on the basis of one anonymous phone call, the social workers swooped and removed a housefull of children into stranger foster care without any proper discussion with the parents or children, no due process, no police present etc - something which would be illegal as well as imoral in UK children's social work).) Thinking about it as I type that rant, I wonder if my annoyance is that subjects are treated in patchy and unequal ways. UK entertainment TV like soap operas can sometimes do really excellent work in terms of raising public awareness through well-researched story lines about subjects like domestic abuse and mental ill-health. But then on other occasions, e.g. Hard Sun in relation to Catholicism and Eastenders in relation to children's social workers, any semblance of accuracy or fairness to the group portrayed goes out the window.

I can see why it winds you up, but it’s reality. This is entertainment—fiction—we’re talking about, and the plot will trump everything else. If the writers want to tell a relevant, socially-responsible story, then that’s what they'll tell, and they’ll research appropriately. But if that’s not the story they want to tell, they won’t.

The real lesson is that no one should ever assume accuracy for this kind of thing in a movie or tv show. Accuracy is a bonus, not a given.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Tangent: recent news reports suggested the couple that the couple married on the plane were previously "not married in the eyes of God" and therefore living in sin.

Can that really be the RC position?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Tangent: recent news reports suggested the couple that the couple married on the plane were previously "not married in the eyes of God" and therefore living in sin.

Can that really be the RC position?

I’m afraid I have no clue what you’re talking about.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

If a person claims to be a Catholic and wishes to contract a sacramental marriage, then it should normally be done in the presence of a minister of the Church. There can, but of course ,be exceptions,(there always are !!)There is ,however, no reason to suppose that the couple in question would not have been able to find a priest.So we can say in this instance that although they may well be married civilly,they have not been married in the eyes of the Church and thus technically are 'living in sin'.

I don't really see what is strange about this position.

However, rather than concentrate on the idea of 'living in sin' why not be joyful that the couple have decided to renew their civil contract in the eyes of God.

I may live in a somewhat cut off way from the rest of the world, but I thought that it was fairly well known that the Catholic Church only recognizes ,FOR CATHOLICS,as a sacramental marriage, a marriage carried out according to the norms of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Zoey, imagine how physicists feel about the central premise of the programme...

There's a recognised genre of stuff that misrepresents physics. It's called sf.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Tangent: recent news reports suggested the couple that the couple married on the plane were previously "not married in the eyes of God" and therefore living in sin.

Can that really be the RC position?

The Pope married a couple on a plane (over, I think Chile). The news reports said that the couple had a civil marriage and, according to the RCC were not really married.

Apols for typos, have a problem with my laptop and my phone it making life difficult..

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

I may live in a somewhat cut off way from the rest of the world, but I thought that it was fairly well known that the Catholic Church only recognizes ,FOR CATHOLICS,as a sacramental marriage, a marriage carried out according to the norms of the Catholic Church.

I didn't realise that the only valid sacramental marriage for an RC was one conducted in an RCC.

Nice to know, I suppose.

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Zoey, imagine how physicists feel about the central premise of the programme...

Are you telling me that MI5 haven't found out the exact timing of the astronomical event which will be the end of the world as we know it, and haven't set a clock counting down to that event in years, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds and centi-seconds? [Ultra confused]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

You may think that.

We couldn't possibly comment.

[Paranoid]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Pope married a couple on a plane (over, I think Chile). The news reports said that the couple had a civil marriage and, according to the RCC were not really married.

Ah, missed that story. Thanks.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It is not true that the only sacramental marriage for a Catholic is one carried out in an RC church but it has to be one carried out according to the norms of the Catholic Church.
A Hindu marriage is not a sacramental marriage for someone who claims to be a Catholic, a Buddhist marriage is not a sacramental marriage for someone who claims to be a Catholic. A civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage for someone who claims to be a Catholic.

If you claim to be a Catholic the only type of Catholic marriage you can have to be married 'in the eyes of the Church' is a marriage which conforms to the norms of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Here is a question about confession that is relevant to a story I'm trying to write.

A man (call him Lanfranc) lies mortally wounded and calls for a priest for confession. Another man (call him Hildebrand) enters, and Lanfranc, who is fading fast at this point, mistakes him for the priest, and before Hildebrand can correct him, pours out a confession of a fairly nasty sin. As a layman, is Hildebrand bound by the seal of confession in the same way a priest would be?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is not true that the only sacramental marriage for a Catholic is one carried out in an RC church but it has to be one carried out according to the norms of the Catholic Church.
A Hindu marriage is not a sacramental marriage for someone who claims to be a Catholic, a Buddhist marriage is not a sacramental marriage for someone who claims to be a Catholic. A civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage for someone who claims to be a Catholic.

If you claim to be a Catholic the only type of Catholic marriage you can have to be married 'in the eyes of the Church' is a marriage which conforms to the norms of the Catholic Church.

That's different from the CofE position, which is that if you were married in a format which is recognised as a marriage by the law of the place where it takes place, you are married.

You are bound by the obligations of marriage. You can't excuse yourself by saying, 'it was only a bit of paper dished out by a registrar'.

Consequently also, if you wish to have your marriage blessed subsequently by the church, the order of service is slightly different. You make the vows, etc. but the questions are in the past tense 'have you...'. The rings can be blessed, but they cannot be given or received. The couple are blessed. But you don't, can't and mustn't sign any register.

If the Pope were to conduct a Catholic wedding in the airspace of England and Wales for a couple who were already civilly married, in law, that would be classed as a blessing. It would have no legal effect. If, however, the couple were not already civilly married, that would probably cause an international incident!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Here is a question about confession that is relevant to a story I'm trying to write.

A man (call him Lanfranc) lies mortally wounded and calls for a priest for confession. Another man (call him Hildebrand) enters, and Lanfranc, who is fading fast at this point, mistakes him for the priest, and before Hildebrand can correct him, pours out a confession of a fairly nasty sin. As a layman, is Hildebrand bound by the seal of confession in the same way a priest would be?

Ecclesially, no. But Hildebrand may feel morally obligated to honour Lanfranc's mistake, and thereby increase shenanigans. Increased shenanigans is always good when it comes to plot.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

As always, the Catholic Encyclopedia is instructive on these matters.

Re the seal of the confessional:

quote:

Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. <<snip>> These prohibitions . . . apply only to what the confessor learns through confession made as part of the sacrament. He is not bound by the seal as regards what may be told him by a person who, he is sure, has no intention of making a sacramental confession but merely speaks to him "in confidence". . . . Nor does the obligation of the seal prevent the confessor from speaking of things which he has learned outside confession, though the same things have also been told him in confession.

Re marriage:

quote:
Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. However, it has been likewise emphasized that marriage must be contracted with the blessing of the priest and the approbation of the Church.

Although I'd be more comfortable if a priest would come forward to elucidate. There are several among our Shipmates, aren't there?

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

What puzzles me is why murderous Thom wanted to go to confession. Did he feel deep and genuine remorse for the murder he had just committed? Did he want sacramental absolution to repair his relationship with God?

Because if that was the case, Thom would have been asking for pastoral and supernatural help, forgiveness and reconciliation. As a practising Catholic he would know that the priest could refuse absolution unless Thom showed contrition and a willingness to amend his ways.

He would have known that forgiveness of a mortal sin would be a serious matter and some evidence of sincerity and good intent would be required in order for him to receive absolution. Anyone who requests the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation would be aware that in cases involving murder, the priest would ask if the penitent is willing to accompany him to the nearest police station before giving absolution.

If Thom had no intention of stopping his murderous spree, it makes no sense that he would want absolution. Confession without absolution is not cathartic or healing or redemptive. It is a pointless exercise and also foolhardy. The priest may be unable to reveal anything disclosed during confession, but the priest would be aware of a murderer at large posing an active threat to the community and would be likely to seek the murderer out again in pastoral concern to ensure he has not killed anyone else.

A serial killer dogged by a clerical stalker who keeps popping up on the doorstep or at the latest murder scene to ask about the state of the killer's mortal soul has all the absurdity of a Father Brown episode.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Enoch I don't know who said that the couple in question who were married by the pope were 'not married' it may well have been the press.

There is no question but that the couple were married and would have had the obligations to each other which marriage entails.

Equally it is the case that their marriage had not been conducted according to the norms of the Church and that therefore from the point of view of the Church they were not married.

The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over civil marriage.Unless in a country where the laws of the Church are considered as laws of the country there is always a separation between the two.

A Catholic marriage in England and Wales only becomes a marriage recognized by the law if the civil formalities are completed,but this does not work the other way round . A
civilly recognized marriage in England and Wales is not automatically recognized as a Catholic sacramental marriage. This is especially the case where the contracting parties claim to be Catholics. In this case their marriage as a sacramental marriage is only recognized by the Church if conducted according to the norms of the Church. Although this is very rare indeed a Catholic sacramental marriage might well not be recognized as a marriage from the point of view of civil law. In normal circumstances the Catholic Church will only perform a marriage if all state formalities have been completed.

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

MaryLouise -

As alluded to upthread, Thom's story is a subplot in a TV series where the main plot is that the British intelligence services have identified that humanity is going to become extinct in exactly 5 years time due to some kinnd of astronomical event codenamed Hard Sun (I'm on episode 5 of 6 and the exact nature of the astronomical event has never been spelled out). A police officer who accidentally came across the Hard Sun files via some hackers gave the information to the media and it was publicized, but the intelligence services then spun this to have been a hoax - i.e. the general public knows about Hard Sun but those who trust authority figures have accepted being told by the media and governments that it was a hoax, however conspiracy theorists are pursuing the Hard Sun theory with a passion.

Thom is a former practising Catholic who has seen atrocities whilst undertaking aid work. He is partly presented as a stereotypical former-believer-atheist who has lost his faith due to the horrendous suffering he's seen and partly presented as a firm believer and proponent of the Hard Sun theory with this adding to the reasons he no longer believes in God. He chooses "good" people to murder on the basis that if God exists, God should intervene and stop his murders. He explains that this is the case during his formal confession to Father Dennis. As to why he makes this confession - if one is suspending disbelief a modicum, then there is some mileage in the theory that Thom is so angry and arrogant that he is compelled to tell somebody what he is doing in order to gloat about it and in that case telling a former priest friend makes sense; however, I think Nick Tamen's point is also strongly at play - Thom makes a confession because, this being TV entertainment, the writers need him to verbalise his motives explicitly to somebody. Altogether, this TV programme as a whole is somewhat bonkers and requires suspension of disbelief on very many levels (but is not entirely unentertaining ...).

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I'd go to prison, rather than violate the seal of the confessional, but if someone tried to murder me I'd give the police everything I could which had happened outside the box.

There was a TV drama, some years ago, called 'Priest' and one of the subplots involved a young girl who confessed that her dad had been raping her. The priest told her to tell her dad to knock it off. The dad then told the priest to mind his own business, out of the confessional and then popped into the confessional to have a gloat. Now the first might be an ethical dilemma but after two and three I'd find a form of words I could share with the fuzz and dial 999. Ditto the plot of Jack Higgins 'Prayer for the Dying' where a priest witnesses a killing and then the murderer nips into the confessional to keep him quiet. There is no intention to keep the sacrament of absolution on the grounds of the villain and therefore, IMO, the priest is not bound by the Seal.

The Seal of the Confessional obliges one to keep confidences. Not to cover up every subsequent detail that one happens across. In real life this is a red herring. People who make confessions, in my experience, tend not to be kiddy fiddlers or homicidal maniacs. People occasionally ask me what would you do if... and I reply, it doesn't happen.

Thus far I have been proved right. Knowing my luck, someone will collar my after the Unity Service this PM and turn out to be Lord Lucan.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

"Thus far I have been proved right. Knowing my luck, someone will collar my after the Unity Service this PM and turn out to be Lord Lucan."

[Killing me]

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

Thank you Callan. A very helpful and illuminating post and just the answers I was looking for with my OP.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
There was a TV drama, some years ago, called 'Priest' and one of the subplots involved a young girl who confessed that her dad had been raping her. The priest told her to tell her dad to knock it off. The dad then told the priest to mind his own business, out of the confessional and then popped into the confessional to have a gloat. Now the first might be an ethical dilemma but after two and three I'd find a form of words I could share with the fuzz and dial 999.

Just as a minor pedantic thing, but if you're talking about the film set in Liverpool that also has a gay-priest character(who has a relationship with a guy played by Robert Carlyle), that was a theatrical release, not made-for-TV. It premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival.

I can't post the wiki link, but you can look it up there or on IMDB.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Amanda wrote:

quote:
As always, the Catholic Encyclopedia is instructive on these matters.

Just as a caveat, that edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia dates from 1912, and it shows, at times.

For example, the 1966 edition, which is not AFAIK on-line, has an article on Freemasonry which is probably the best I have ever read on that topic, comprehensive, objective, while still maintaining the Church's position. The 1912 edition, by contrast, goes on about the popularity of a "Masonic bloc" in French politics is due to "a decline in morality.

I'm generally cool with linking to the 1912, because it IS the only version on-line, just that it's antiquity, for lack of a better word, should be read into the record.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

...
The Seal of the Confessional obliges one to keep confidences. Not to cover up every subsequent detail that one happens across.

In addition, in the tv drama you relate, the [first] seal of confession is (I presume?) between priest and the victim. Which must make a different set of issues.

For a start the 'confessor' is presumably much more in need of counseling than actual absolution.
And while with a vanilla confession the alleged wrongdoer has confessed (and if they lied and suffer ill effects, it's their fault), in these and presumably other multi-party there's an extent where there's openness to at least exaggeration ("I inadvertently helped Mrs Weatherwax prepare a curse") [and unlike a police report there it's not the start of an investigation]
[and of course the theoretical possibility of having to deal with the others confession and any conflicts of interest there]

[ 21. January 2018, 17:19: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Interesting OP, and a question I thought as well.

From what I understand, what is said in the confessional is sacrosanct - more than any other conversation.

However, outside the confessional, once the confession is sone, and the absolution given or whatever, the sanctity is gone. So the priest would have been perfectly OK with reporting the assault on him within the church. And giving the police the name of the man who had been in his church, without revealing anything that had been said - would be acceptable.

And not revealing that someone he knew might be a danger to others, as he did, would be looked on very poorly, I suspect. It is not very Christian - or even Catholic - to allow people to die.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
"Thus far I have been proved right. Knowing my luck, someone will collar my after the Unity Service this PM and turn out to be Lord Lucan."

Carry a thermos of espresso with you, just in case, then, as I suspect that the Earl's confession will be very lengthy.

As an afterthought, you might prescribe as penance an extended stay in public housing in Lucan, Co. Dublin.

[ 22. January 2018, 03:08: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

There was an episode of "The Equalizer"* about a youngish priest who was warned in the confessional about a future murder. He was determined to both keep the confession secret *and* try to stop the murder.

{I'm doing this from long-ago memory, because I couldn't find a detailed synopsis online.}

Somehow, McCall (an ex-spy trying to find his soul again, by helping people) finds out. He talks to the priest's bishop, who knew the general outline of the situation--and he'd given the priest permission to tell. But the priest refuses.

IIRC, the priest goes on his way to try to stop the murder. McCall follows him. I think it takes both of them to stop the murder. But the priest never broke the seal of the confessional.

*"The Equalizer", Season 2, Episode 10: "The Cup". Looks like you can watch it online in several places. Really good episode.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am sure I have seen similar storylines. And I am sure that most - if not all - priests would keep the seal of the confessional whilst also preserving life.

That is the real difficult balance, I think. Not breaking the confession, but identifying ways that criminals can be brought to justice without breaking that (which is very important).

Broken, IIRC, addressed that quite well. How to keep the seal of the confessional, without it being used to hurt people.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Hard Sun is the crappest thing on TV. However in an attempt to be fair to the writers about this particular issue, I note that while the police imply that Father Dennis is not answering their questions because of the seal of the confessional, Father Dennis himself never says this (I think). He merely says that he can't answer their questions. He may be perverting the course of justice for other reasons. I note that we still don't know how he and Thom know each other, but perhaps their former relationship is the reason why Father Dennis doesn't simply say, as he could "the man who attacked me is Thom [Whoever]" - which, as people have noted above, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a confession was made.

A bigger question is whether it is abuse (*looks over shoulder for the Misuse Of Abuse Police*) for my Old Man to force me to watch this shite.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am quite enjoying Hard Sun, as it happens. But the priest who wouldn't possibly, vaguely compromise a confession is fine with beating up a man?

That is a serious discrepancy in character.

Given that there are some really interesting, complex and conflicted characters, this is a problem.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0