This analysis was prompted by a post made by Barbara Stone to FORKNI-L on 5 July 2013. You can find the full text of her letter archived on Knightwind's Nook here.

Barbara points out that, although Nick is sure that his soul is damned because of all the people he has killed as a vampire, this conviction is not based on tenets that are specifically Catholic: "Thou shalt not kill" is a stricture that is hardly limited to just the one sect. On the other hand, his belief that his redemption requires him to atone through good works, rather than simply rely just on God's good will, is something that does derive from his faith. She then goes on to the specific question that led me to write.

Because of length, my discussion was sent to the list in two parts, both mailed in the morning of July 19th. I have slightly edited what I wrote at that time.

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.)

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 Forever Knight. 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 undermine 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 a 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 is 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 whom 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 warns 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. It 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.

There was some further discussion of the issues the same day. Anyone interested can find the posts archived here.