| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
This was originally planned as two 1000-word essays. Putting everything on one page seems more appropriate because there is one central theme. | | | Privilege's End | |
<
< | Consequently, the Anglican faith did not hold confession in the same spiritual and absolute regard, and the Catholic faith which did was marginalized, and technically if not entirely illegal at times, leading to a decline in private confession as an English social practice. In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, likely due to the active persecution of Catholics, I cannot find any legal cases specifically about priest-penitent privilege, but the cases dealing the final deathblow to priest-penitent privilege in England ironically emerge during the early nineteenth century period of Catholic emancipation, most notably _R. v. Gilham_(1828). This line of cases came to stand for the proposition that confession had never been protected in English common law, and to the extent it was privileged, had only been privileged by canon law. Some detractors fought valiantly to argue this was a misinterpretation, notably Jeremy Bentham in his 1827 discussion of proper rules of evidence in English law.. While some Catholic and Mormon sources continue to maintain to this day that this line of cases is misconstrued, from the early 20th century onwards legal texts summarize that there is no priest-penitent privilege in the English common law at all.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | Consequently, the Anglican faith did not hold confession in the same spiritual and absolute regard, and the Catholic faith which did was marginalized, and technically if not entirely illegal at times, leading to a decline in private confession as an English social practice. In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, likely due to the active persecution of Catholics, I cannot find any legal cases specifically about priest-penitent privilege, but the cases dealing the final deathblow to priest-penitent privilege in England ironically emerge during the early nineteenth century period of Catholic emancipation, most notably _R. v. Gilham_(1828). This line of cases came to stand for the proposition that confession had never been protected in English common law, and to the extent it was privileged, had only been privileged by canon law. Some detractors fought valiantly to argue this was a misinterpretation, notably Jeremy Bentham in his 1827 discussion of proper rules of evidence in English law.. While some Catholic and Mormon sources continue to maintain to this day that this line of cases is misconstrued, from the early 20th century onwards legal texts summarize that there is no priest-penitent privilege in the English common law at all.
Notes
:
| | |
Part Three: Jeremy Bentham's Body Lies A-Mouldering On A Chair | |
<
< | The motivation for the prior two parts of history is the present. A new box is emerging. It contains not only our regrets and fears, but also our hopes and dreams. The scope of the priest in confession is prescribing a particular penance, one specific behavior that can lead to absolution. The tracking search engine, on the other hand, plumbs the psyche and aims to produce desired results that lead to a never-ending loop of behavior and consumption. On the other hand, the search engine has positive effects; Exposing as much of the knowledge in the world as possible to everyone is a a re-enactment of Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English on a secular and astronomical scale. Consequently, the first demand in the context of the search engine may parallel the first demand relating to confession in English law: if a man desire it, may it not be denied to him. Already, the Indian state of Kerala has declared that internet access must be denied to no one, and free WiFi? must be available across the land in the same way parishes open to hear confessions were made available. Perhaps, to recognize the sacredness and inviolability of the box, the first step is always to recognize it is so indispensable for our certain form of life and character that access must be granted to everyone. We may even recognize doing generally expected research via search engine to fall under a duty of due care.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | The motivation for the prior two parts of history is the present. A new box is emerging. It contains not only our regrets and fears, but also our hopes and dreams. The scope of the priest in confession is prescribing a particular penance, one specific behavior that can lead to absolution. The tracking search engine, on the other hand, plumbs the psyche and aims to produce desired results that lead to a never-ending loop of behavior and consumption. On the other hand, the search engine, like the confessional, has real positive effects in society; Exposing as much of the knowledge in the world as possible to everyone is a a re-enactment of Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English on a secular and cosmic scale. Consequently, the first demand in the context of the search engine may parallel the first demand relating to confession in English law: if a man desire it, may it not be denied to him. Already, the Indian state of Kerala has declared that internet access must be denied to no one, and free WiFi? must be available across the land in the same way parishes open to hear confessions were made available, and not the pseudo-internet walled garden of Free Basics. Perhaps, to recognize the sacredness and inviolability of the box, the first step is always to recognize it is so indispensable for our certain form of life and character that access must be granted to everyone. We may even come to recognize doing generally expected research via search engine to fall under a duty of due care, in the way the Councils of the 13th and 14th centuries sought to declare confession obligatory. Perhaps we already have, as the idea of performing research without search tools is viewed as obsolete and insane. The idea that everyone ought to have access to the box is a relatively easy sell, but the box itself, in a way, exists in a state of Anglicanism. Nominal state control and the government being allowed inside the box is an accepted compromise for the protection and non-liability of the owners and the operators of the box.
The best stepping-off point from the recognition of the box as sacred and owed to everyone seems to be the development of a set of understandings, developed through both practical social and philosophical reflection akin to the ecclesiastical councils of the 12th-14th centuries. If a box is sufficiently sacrosanct to be owed to everyone, ideas about what make it sacred and what about the relationship is so essential to make it inviolable even by the secular force of the state are necessary. This is because without a theological perspective on what is sacred and inviolable about the relationship, exceptions for what serves the interest of the state will be made, and those exceptions will have no real boundaries to prevent them from overrunning everything. For the priest to disclose by sign or word the confession, to blame or accuse in courts of the King, undermines the ability of the priest to serve as the direct conduit to the forgiveness of God. The practical infinity of information available through the box is, in its own way, the mind of God. Jeremy Bentham thought the chilling effect of every word not confessed to the priest was an epistemic injustice upon humankind, where the great mass of evidence for all things would be permanently lessened if the box did not keep its secrets. Perhaps a correct tactic moving forward is to hold that learning is so sacred it cannot be chilled by the prospect that what one sought to learn should be used against them later.
Alternatively, the anticlerical ideas of protestants like John Milton may hold some sway. Who is great-souled enough to act like an absolute intermediary between man and God himself, and who is so puny as to need an intermediary? In the pamphlet Of True Religion, Catholicism is vile most of all because it takes implicit authority by standing between Man and God and uses that authority wrongly, leading the gullible members of the congregation astray. In this way Cambridge Analytica can be seen as no more than a rogue bishop exploiting a corrupt system which is always executing a man-in-the-middle attack between Man and God.
Yet, this idea need not solely protestant - Dante reserved the final two circles of Hell in lower Cocytus for traitors to their guests and traitors to their benefactors. The Free Software Movement began because Richard Stallman saw a deep profanity in a program disrespecting the user. And he saw the sea shifting away from programs wholly executed by the user to Service as a Software Substitute. What of the service which betrays its guest, its lord and benefactor? If we come to see it as an offense worthy of the lowest circles of Hell, legal protections will materialize. And if the relationship with the box is schizophrenically viewed as casual or insignificant when it is anything but, the legal protections will continue to wither away here, too.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | |
|