• "Jangles" for gnosticdiva
  
• "Post mortem" for vorpalblades
  
• "Consequences" for pj1228
  
• "The Sack" for skieswideopen
  
• "Pilgrim to Eternity" for gnosticdiva
  
• "Rats to You!" for gnosticdiva
  

waltd

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?
( Read more... )

Although we saw the Raven in the series premiere, it is with "For I have Sinned" that we really get it presented as a vampire hang-out—and in a way that we never see again, even though vampires do turn up at the club in later episodes.

I think this is because, in that first scene when Nick goes to the Raven to see if Janette knows anything about the case, he speaks so openly (granted on a loud dance floor) to that young vampire guy. You know the line: "Immortality is no excuse not to floss." It's obviously funny; but it's also confrontational. This is a young buck challenging Nick, who simply puts him down in one flattening phrase. Then, only minutes later, Janette refers to Myra ("binging and purging"). She seems to be dancing with the young male vampire: is that the reason he was antagonistic to Nick? did he think the older vampire intended to cut in? And then, of course, there's Alma, who is the only one of the three to have a significant role to play in the rest of the episode.

I don't think we ever again get to see so many vampires at the Raven—two of whom are merely throw-away colour! It does, however, immediately establish it as more than simply a Goth club owned by Janette. It is Toronto's premiere vampire hang-out.

Of course, "For I have Sinned" is the third episode of the series. The writers are still in the position of establishing Forever Knight's version of vampires in the eyes of the viewer. I remember, when I was writing my virtual season, FK4, having the same need to write things into the third episode to mop up odd bits of lore that people would need to know. In "For I have Sinned", for example, we have the scene where Nick takes a garlic pill. We never see him do this ever again, nor (as far as I recall) is it referred to. It's there for only one real reason: to establish for viewers that the vampires of FK have the usual garlic allergy.

More significant to the plot, of course, is the allergy to crosses.

Almost immediately, when Nick and Schanke go to the crime scene, we are shown how he jibs at the crucified body and wants it covered up. In the morgue, he shies from the little silver cross that the victim had been wearing. And, in a slightly later scene, he tests himself by taking it out of the evidence bag and putting it in his palm. Now that's quite a graphic scene: unusually shocking, I think, for the time, especially in a PG-rated show. They not only used a bit of smoke and sizzle (in the sound effects), but also had very realistic make-up on the hand to show us the serious burn that he suffered.

At the end of the episode, of course, Nick is able to hold the same cross without burning himself. That is highly significant in the context of "For I have Sinned", of course; but, as an evolution in his salvation, it is belied by many later episodes. Though the writers never showed him testing himself on a cross again in the same way, they certainly had him demonstrate an identical fear-response. (In "Bad Blood", for instance, he nearly causes an accident when shown a cross while driving.) This sort of inconsistency is very common in the series. The allergy that vampires have to crosses, in FK as elsewhere, is simply too good—and too familiar—a thing to drop. Indeed, if they were to make Nick different, it would puzzle new viewers any time he were able to be around religious objects without consequence, wouldn't it?

Nearly always crosses, mind: this is the first, but hardly the last episode to give the impression that Forever Knight is not only Christian-focused but, specifically, rather than have a more varied selection of sects, tends to a Catholic orientation. However (if only ex post facto), one mustn't forget that obsidian raven dagger in "Blackwing". Nick found that painful to touch even before he knew it had religious significance.

An inability to tolerate proximity to religious objects is just too useful, dramatically speaking, to drop from the show. Nevertheless, even if only from the perspective of the episode itself, the writer did have a nice bit of character development there, by having Nick's braving the cross to save a life curing his allergy.

Thinking a bit more about "Dark Knight", it occurred to me what a catalytic role that Mayan exhibit had. *g*

Nick had evidently been in Toronto for about three years, working as a cop for a year. In that time, he clearly knew Janette was at the Raven (for how else would he have known to look for her there). Yet it took Lacroix's arrival in Toronto to get him to go and see her.

Of course, it was also the murder of the guard—the only one committed by Lacroix (when he decided to get the jade cup)—that persuaded Stonetree to set Nick up with Schanke as his partner.

Lacroix, of course, only came to Toronto because he thought Nick was after the jade cup, which had been featured in the newspaper.

And (this is the joke), Nick hadn't even noticed the exhibit was on!

Since there are so many active users who weren't there in 1992, I was wondering: would anyone be down for watching the episodes together at the same time more or less? And then discuss them like it's 1992?