MovieChat Forums > I Confess (1953) Discussion > An attack on the Catholic Church?

An attack on the Catholic Church?


This film presumably wasn't an attack on the Catholic Church, but if it were made today that is how it would be taken. If Logan followed conventional morality, he would tell the police what he knew, the killer would be caught and no one else would suffer. But because his religion imposes a vow of silence, the killer goes on to kill two other people. A clear demonstration, if you ask me, of the pernicious and irresponsible nature of such a vow. It would be interesting to know what the Catholic Church's policy is these days on murderers who confess in the confessional. Quebec in the film is interesting -- very sinister, with seemingly more religion going on than is healthy. The only people who emerge well from the film are the police, because their values (being free of religion) are those by which society operates today.

reply

I haven't yet seen the film (I intend to watch it tonight) but I can answer your question about the Catholic stand point on the issue today. A Catholic priest is still bound under silence of whatever is told to him in the confessional. As the priest in the confessional he represents God (the priest doesn't actually forgive you your sins - its God who does)and therefor cannot reveal what has been said to God alone.
However, no priest will (if they are in earnest about their duty) give the person confessing absolution (forgiveness) unless they promise to conform to the natural consequences of their crime. Eg. they will have to confess to the police as well.

"I believe you have no heart!"
"I wish I hadn't!"
Laurie & Jo

reply

I am amazed this still applies. Thanks. That makes the film more relevant today than I thought it was.

reply

Actually, a priest is not allowed to make absolution dependent upon your revealing your sin to anyone else. He can strongly counsel that you confess your crime, but he cannot withhold absolution because of that.

reply

That is not true. A priest can definitely withhold absolution if the person does not do as he says he must. The person certainly doesn't have to reveal his sin (say murder for example) if the priest doesn't stipulate it, but if he does he is duty bound to give himself in. And if he doesn't give himself in, after the priest has told him too and he has said he would, the absolution is null and void and he is not cleared of his mortal sin, and is therefor deprived of sanctifying grace, until he does confess. It is up to the priest to judge each individual case, and decide whether the person has to give himself in or not.

"I believe you have no heart!"
"I wish I hadn't!"
Laurie & Jo

reply

I no longer am a practicing Catholic due to the fact that almost every belief of the Catholic Church is man made. Read Galatians and Ephesians, The Catholic Church has done nothing more than twist and add to the gospels, which if you read Galatians and Ephesians, it explains God's stance on the subject.

reply

Every religion in essence is man made, it is man's interpretation of the world & nature.

The only difference is the Catholic Church is a 2000 year old religion making it the oldest Christian religion along with the Orthodox church, whereas many other religions are very recent.



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

d-h-berry. you haven't thought things through. Do you think a lot of people would confess to crimes (in the confessional) if they weren't assured of the priest's silence?

reply

Cuconnacht, *do* people confess in the confessional that they have committed murder? I have no way of knowing this. Do you?

In Britain if someone tells you that they have committed murder and you do not go to the police, you are an accessory after the fact and will be severely punished. I had supposed that the Catholic Church had revised their policy to get round this, but from what the other contributors say it doesn't look as if they have. This makes I Confess still very relevant.

reply

Cuconnacht, *do* people confess in the confessional that they have committed murder? I have no way of knowing this. Do you?


Think about this logically & the rationale behind such a vow of silence. Haven't you seen the many films & books of priests being put to prison or death due to their vow of silence?



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

I'm not Catholic, but I thought the priest was being moral by following the rules of the church. Many of our laws and morals are based off of religion in the first place. I suspect the majority of audiences would have sided with Father Logan through out the movie.

reply

Not this audience!!

I believe that only God in the name of Jesus Christ can forgive us for our sins.

The Bible states that God is willing to forgive us for our sins....
if we are willing to repent; but there are consequences for committing those sins and rightfully so; especially murder!!

What if you have a serial killer who commits multiple murders, and then has the habitual religious ritual of confessing to a priest so that he won't be prosecuted and pay the obvious severe consequence for that continuous sin?

I am sure that there must be many, many confessions of
heinous crimes that have probably been confessed to priests all over the world,
that the governing police agencies NEVER found out about!

I think it is morally and spiritually wrong for the Catholic Church to sanction such
a rule that would allow an individual to hide behind the sacred robes of the priest and the church.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised....seeing as though the Catholic Church in the recent past made it quite easy for pedophiles to commit their despicable crimes and get away with it...that is until "the victims"
(God bless them for their courage), decided to stand up and tell the whole world about it!

I would hate to think what might have continued if they hadn't decided to come
forward!

"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

You are correct to a point. You must understand, sin is sin in God's eyes, whether it is murder, adultry, theft, etc. Man has put degrees or levels of crime/sin into mans law.

reply

This is not a surprise, many modern audience' who watch older classics like Boy's Town often associate modern bias opinions against the characters who were priests. They cannot see a film without the prejudice & ignorance of their modern perceptions.

Pedophiles often seek professions that allow them easy access to children, these includes priests, clergymen, teachers, coaches, etc.


I think it is morally wrong to discriminate people who are not part of your own personal religion/culture. It seems people have no qualms holding an inquisition against both Catholics & Muslims nowadays while hypocritically damning the inquisition made in the past by Christians. They excuse their actions while condemn the very same action made in the past. People never change do they? They just jump from whatever religion/non-religion that suits them to feed their fear & hatred of the 'otherness.'



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

You are absolutely ridiculous.

You obviously know nothing about the Catholic Church but ignorantly spread your woeful misinterpretation, bigotry & intolerance.
Some Christian YOU are.

Glad to know you at least don't represent my belief system or belong to ANY group in which I'm a member.
That is no small comfort.

You seriously think it's the CATHOLIC church that battles pedophiles and NOT YOUR church? Get a reality check. They have permeated every religion or anywhere else they can have access to children.

Seriously, you are a hateful & ugly bigot.
And you are NOT a Christian. Certainly a Practicing Christian. Maybe devote some effort into learning what that means.

Lastly, it's SO tiring to endure the likes of your herd.

Here's to hoping someone bashes whatever YOU practice--your beliefs-- instead of trying to educate themselves.
My strong sense is that it's quite likely your faith is of the most simplistic in nature. Along the lines of...just BELIEVE in Jesus, accept him into your heart & you are "saved"......probably doesn't much matter what sort of ass you are during your life, or your actions, eh?
I literally can't stomach when someone thinks one can reduce Christianity to such moronic terms. How embarrassing.

And SORRY, you are going to be VERY surprised not too far ahead but heck, I do NOT judge & maybe God gives some extra latitude for those with questionable brain power.

YOUR faith obviously does NOT include being charitable, tolerant or respectable toward others of various faiths. I can't begin to imagine your thoughts on MANY theological issues (and I will NOT get into Bible debate with YOU but you obviously know nothing about the sacrament of confession, so stay MUTE).

But most of all, I can only imagine your response (if someone challenges what you believe). Now that would be priceless to witness.

reply

Quebec in the film is interesting -- very sinister, with seemingly more religion going on than is healthy.

How much is more than is healthy?

reply

Any amount can be unhealthy.

reply

But because his religion imposes a vow of silence, the killer goes on to kill two other people. A clear demonstration, if you ask me, of the pernicious and irresponsible nature of such a vow.
But there are also secular laws that offer similar protection. Anything you tell your lawyer is privileged communication that can't be revealed to anyone. Someone accused of murder can admit to his lawyer that he actually committed the deed, and this does not free the lawyer from his obligation to provide his client with the best defense possible. This lawyer cannot tell the prosecutor, judge, victim's family, or anyone of his client's admission.

If anything you (as a person accused of a crime) tell your lawyer could be leaked to other parties, your civil rights would be in jeopardy, since all accused are guaranteed a fair trial. The purpose of sealed communications is to ensure that a client doesn't feel restricted in what he can discuss with his counsel. Open communication allows the lawyer to have all the facts in order to devise the best strategy for a defense.

Similarly, doctor-patient communications are also privileged. If you are a pedophile seeking treatment from a psychiatrist, that doctor cannot tell anyone what you reveal -- even if you are currently molesting a child. If a doctor could turn you in for revealing what you've done or are doing, then presumably no pedophiles would seek treatment. In the long run, treating the pedophile so that he stops molesting the current child and molests no more children is worth the guarantee of confidential communication because without it, that pedophile may go on molesting many more children in the future.

I'm open to correction on this last point because there may be some loophole wherein the doctor can act if he believes the patient is an imminent danger to himself or others. But even in that case, it could be that his sole recourse is to have the patient committed and either forcibly medicated (with Depo-Provera or a similar drug) or delivered to rigourous treatment instead of actually being allowed to report him to authorities or otherwise break the seal of confidentiality.

It is, of course, an imperfect system; but as you can see, there are reasons for having it. I personally wouldn't be much consoled if I were the parent of a molested child and found out that I was never warned because it would have jeopardized the future safety of other children.

reply

But because his religion imposes a vow of silence, the killer goes on to kill two other people. A clear demonstration, if you ask me, of the pernicious and irresponsible nature of such a vow.
Just to add:

If a person has committed a crime and wants to make peace with his maker, perhaps the state feels that they have no right to interfere with this. Just as a client is allowed to confess to his lawyer or a patient allowed to reveal things to his doctor without fear of incrimination because it's a basic civil right that a government wishes to provide to its citizens. (And it may even pave the way for treatment and closure; after all, a lawyer's client still has to undergo trial and can still be found guilty by a jury.)

Preparing one's soul for the afterlife may be something that the government feels is totally separate from administering jurisprudence in the corporeal world. A patient may not seek treatment for his compulsions if a doctor could turn him in to the authorities. A client may not seek a lawyer's counsel (to the detriment of his own trial) if his lawyer could turn him in to the authorities. Likewise, a penitent might be denied a sacrament for his soul -- something the state has no right to deny anyone -- if the priest can turn him in to the authorities.

I know there is concern about a serial offender continuing to harm others. But would that type of person -- or a career criminal for that matter -- even be the type to go to confession? The most likely candidate is someone who is horrified by his crime. Assuming this one-time scenario, the penitent-priest confidentiality seal may be the least harmful of the privileged communications. If someone is disturbed enough about his act that he feels he must unburden himself, and if he is in such a state of concern about his soul that he seeks out a priest, then this is a sign of a troubled conscience. Once he spills his words out to a priest, perhaps he is more likely to take the step of going to the legal authorities.

Note also that the priest is hearing a confession for an act that is already done and over with. The penitent cannot obtain forgiveness for an act he plans to do. In the case of a murder, what can the priest accomplish by breaking the seal and disclosing the confession to the authorities? The life has already been taken; the victim's family will not see their loved one on earth again whether the killer turns himself in or not. Yes, it's sad that they would be denied the closure of a trial (or of learning their loved one's fate if it's an unsolved crime). It is also sad that the state won't be able to seek justice on their behalf. For these reasons the guilty party must be impressed upon to turn himself in. But even if he does, I don't think it mitigates the survivors' grief by all that much.

reply

A very well thought-out argument, I take my hat of to you!

We Take What Is Given - Kol Skywalker

reply

But would that type of person -- or a career criminal for that matter -- even be the type to go to confession?
There's always a possibility...

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

A very belated observation but a priest does not see a penitent but hears only a whispered confession. Even if the priest were allowed to break the seal of confession what would he be able to say to the police?

reply

brand78:

A very belated observation

A very moronic observation.

a priest does not see a penitent but hears only a whispered confession. Even if the priest were allowed to break the seal of confession what would he be able to say to the police?

I take it you haven't seen the film.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

reply

I have seen the film and there is nothing moronic about my observation - it is factually correct.

reply

The point of the confessional is not absolution in regard to man's law, but to God's. If a serial killer was to walk into a confessional, confess to murder, and expressed the clear intent to murder again, the priest's role would not be to identify the killer to the proper authorities. The priest's role under the Church dictates would be to try and persuade the killer to stop from killing again, go to the law for arrest, and do whatever could be done to atone for the sin of repeat murder, but it would not be to go to the authorities as a priest and break the seal of the confessional.

As Catholics understand this, and I write as one, it is less important that this serial killer continues killing than that the killer's soul is not placed in eternal peril as a result of false witness given by a priest. A priest's job would not be to say "it's alright, God loves you, say ten Hail Marys and you'll be fine", but it wouldn't be picking the killer out of a police lineup, either. The priest's job involves holding the killer's soul, sacrosanct, as the one person who can save that killer from eternal damnation through direct, wise, and spiritually sound counsel, even if that killer is otherwise depraved. The soul of the killer, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, outweigh the temporal lives of a hundred victims. Likewise, the soul of a murder victim outweighs the temporal life of the killer. It's not fair, perhaps, but it's the way metaphysics often work.

That's the dilemma of "I Confess" in a nutshell, mitigated by the fact this Keller fellow doesn't seem likely to kill again, except if it's his wife or priest. Also, he doesn't seem to benefit from the priest's counsel, but that's an issue more with the film than with the Sacrament of Penance.

reply

posted by brand78:

A very belated observation but a priest does not see a penitent but hears only a whispered confession. Even if the priest were allowed to break the seal of confession what would he be able to say to the police?
That's a noteworthy observation that I didn't even think of.

Just to add, I believe that the Catholic Church has recently begun to refer to the sacrament of penance (confession) as "reconciliation," and they are also starting to offer confession in different forms, one of which is by appointment with the priest in his office -- face to face, sort of like a counselling session. But people can still partake of the anonymous confession if they prefer. It all depends on which method one is more comfortable with.

The availability of face-to-face confession illustrates the dilemma for the priest that is portrayed in the film: it's the penitent's prerogative to disclose all or part of his/her identity to the priest. Even if he/she chooses to do so (as Otto Keller did), it doesn't release the priest from his duty to uphold the confessional seal. Still, it's a good point you brought up about how confession can be anonymous (unlike doctor-patient and lawyer-client privilege).

posted by Lordshame:
A very well thought-out argument, I take my hat of to you!
Well Lordshame, since you posted that right after my comment, I'll gladly assume that compliment is for me and say thank you.

reply

Confession can be behind a screen or face-to-face. In the movie Logan obviously knows who is talking to him. None of that changes anything. He is still required to keep quiet.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

" The only people who emerge well from the film are the police, because their values (being free of religion) are those by which society operates today."


Which is ironic because Hitchcock hated the police. That is why the police are usually portrayed as bumbling idiots in his movies. But I don't think the police necessarily get off scot-free in this one. They targeted an innocent man, a priest none the less. They would definitely look bad after the real murderer was taken down. In the 1950s people were still very religious and going after a priest would have been considered criminal.

Reporter: How do you find America?
John Lennon: Turned left at Greenland. -A Hard Day's Night-

reply

But what if Logan was not the defendant? What if it was an innocent bystander? Would it had been acceptable for Logan to be quiet and not come forward to free the wrongly accused?

God wants us to feel free to ask his forgiveness without a human mediator. No human can pardon sins, not even a "priest". We need to talk to God directly. We are all his children.

reply

You're very right: Hitchcock’s hatred of the police has a field day here. They put the wrong man in the dock, publicly humiliate his childhood sweetheart and her loving husband, and then shoot dead the actual murderer. Quebec ends up littered with corpses, without a shred of legal proof over who did it all and why.

reply