Priests: We won’t break seal of confession to report sex abuse

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Priests: We won’t break seal of confession to report sex abuse

And yet another scandal. I am ashamed that I was born and raised and once believed in this religion :

 

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-we-wont-break-seal-of-confession-to-report-sex-abuse-3092495.html

Priests: We won’t break seal of confession to report sex abuse

By Michael Brennan, deputy editor and chief

CATHOLIC priests will defy a new law that requires them to report sexual abuse disclosed to them in the confession box -- despite the threat of 10-year jail sentences.

 

It came after Justice Minister Alan Shatter confirmed the mandatory reporting requirement would apply to priests hearing confession.

 

Fr Sean McDonagh of the Association of Catholic Priests, which represents 800 clergymen, warned last night: "I certainly wouldn't be willing to break the seal of confession for anyone -- Alan Shatter particularly."

 

And Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin Raymond Field said: "The seal of the confessional is inviolable as far as I am concerned, and that's the end of the matter."

 

It puts the clergy on a direct collision course with Mr Shatter because new laws oblige every person to report suspected sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults to gardai.

 

Mr Shatter said last night: "I would expect that if there was someone going to confession who was a serial sex abuser, I don't know how anyone could live with their conscience if they didn't refer that to the gardai."

 

His draft legislation, which is due to be introduced later this year, has already drawn a strong response from the church.

 

It has excommunicated priests in the past for revealing details of confessions.

The Catholic Church has always insisted it has no problem with the reporting of child physical and sexual abuse allegations to the authorities -- except when the information is given during confession.

 

The auxiliary bishop of Dublin was just one leading church figure who moved to stress that priests would not be co-operating with the requirement to report sexual abuse information given during confession.

 

The Association of Catholic Priests said the legislation was a foolish move that could not be enforced.

 

Its spokesman, Fr McDonagh, recalled how a New Zealand Columban priest, Francis Douglas, was tortured to death by the Japanese during World War Two because he refused to reveal information received in confession about the Filipino guerrillas.

 

"He is held up to us as a model of how you deal with this extraordinary sacrament. You shouldn't put into legislation something that cannot be enforced.

 

"It makes a mockery of the legislation," he said.

 

Fr McDonagh pointed out that confessions were held in private so that priests did not know who was in the confessional box.

 

And he questioned whether the mandatory reporting requirement would stop even one case of child sexual abuse.

 

It is the latest flashpoint between the Government and the Catholic Church, following the highly publicised row over Taoiseach Enda Kenny's criticism of the Vatican for failing to co-operate with clerical sexual abuse inquiries last year.

 

He declared that canon law would not be allowed to supersede state law. The Irish Embassy to the Vatican was subsequently closed "for budgetary reasons".

 

Warnings

 

Mr Shatter said the controversy over the confessional was a "side issue" because the Murphy and Cloyne reports into clerical sex abuse had never mentioned it as the cause of the problem.

"As someone who doesn't frequent confession, I don't know what information people share in confessions.He pointed out that the main issue had been the failure of the Catholic Church authorities to act on warnings from victims -- and the movement of priests accused of abuse from parish to parish.

 

"But I don't think anyone has a substantial knowledge about numbers of paedophiles sharing their exploits through the confessional and being given absolution for it," he said.

 

Mr Shatter pointed out that there was also no exemption for the confessional in legislation passed back in 1998 requiring mandatory reporting of offences such as murder, kidnapping and bank robberies.

 

He said he was not aware of any priest being prosecuted under this legislation.

 

Children's Minister Frances Fitzgerald also added that criminal justice legislation passed last year required anyone with knowledge of white-collar crime to report it.

 

"And there's no exemptions in relation to the confessional," she said.

 

The Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference said it welcomed the fact that the State was putting the 'Children First' child protection guidelines into law -- which it had been following since 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Its

harleysportster wrote:

Its spokesman, Fr McDonagh, recalled how a New Zealand Columban priest, Francis Douglas, was tortured to death by the Japanese during World War Two because he refused to reveal information received in confession about the Filipino guerrillas.

What a douche... sure compare WWII to child molesters

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think anyone

 I don't think anyone should be compelled by law to report any crime that they have knowledge or suspicions of, unless you are actively encouraging, involved in the commission of the crime, helping to cover up the crime, lying to investigators, or have some legal obligation to protect the individual who was/will be harmed you should face no legal punishment.

 

This is how US law currently is in most states with a few exceptions for certain professions that work with children (teachers, daycare workers, medical etc.) might be legally required to report suspected abuse. Someone who has a legal responsibility to care for the victim or legal obligation to protect the interests of the victim like someone with a fiduciary responsibility have a legal obligation to protect their clients.

 

Outside of those special classes, you generally do not have a legal obligation to report crimes that may be/have been committed, whether you are their priest, spouse, neighbor, friend or a random stranger and I don't think there should be. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't think anyone should be compelled by law to report any crime that they have knowledge or suspicions of, unless you are actively encouraging, involved in the commission of the crime, helping to cover up the crime, lying to investigators, or have some legal obligation to protect the individual who was/will be harmed you should face no legal punishment.

 

This is how US law currently is in most states with a few exceptions for certain professions that work with children (teachers, daycare workers, medical etc.) might be legally required to report suspected abuse. Someone who has a legal responsibility to care for the victim or legal obligation to protect the interests of the victim like someone with a fiduciary responsibility have a legal obligation to protect their clients.

 

Outside of those special classes, you generally do not have a legal obligation to report crimes that may be/have been committed, whether you are their priest, spouse, neighbor, friend or a random stranger and I don't think there should be. 

I would only agree with any of this if it were pertaining to crimes against adults only.  Few children have the capacity to comprehend the full reality of what's been done to them. And if they do have full comprehension of it they are not likely in a situation to where they are able to report it themselves without overwhelming fear of consequences.  It's simply an obligation to help those who are unable help themselves.

And also the key words here are "knowledge" and "suspicion".  Big difference. 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't think anyone should be compelled by law to report any crime that they have knowledge or suspicions of, unless you are actively encouraging, involved in the commission of the crime, helping to cover up the crime, lying to investigators, or have some legal obligation to protect the individual who was/will be harmed you should face no legal punishment.

 

This is how US law currently is in most states with a few exceptions for certain professions that work with children (teachers, daycare workers, medical etc.) might be legally required to report suspected abuse. Someone who has a legal responsibility to care for the victim or legal obligation to protect the interests of the victim like someone with a fiduciary responsibility have a legal obligation to protect their clients.

 

Outside of those special classes, you generally do not have a legal obligation to report crimes that may be/have been committed, whether you are their priest, spouse, neighbor, friend or a random stranger and I don't think there should be. 

There is not much I agree with you on as we both well know. But I agree in a yes and no context.

I agree in the sense that long term I don't want to foster a "big brother" society where scrutiny presumes guilt of the accused.

 

HOWEVER, under the guise of "freedom of religion" these assholes are still cowards. If I have to choose between protecting my religion, or protecting a child molester, the choice seems obvious to anyone with morals.

But you bring up a good point outside the issue of priests or this particular subject. There can be lots of situations where someone witnesses a crime like a murder or a robbery, and can feel like they will risk their life if they come forward, and they may have family and friends that could be harmed if they did come forward.

That is why in most places you are not obligated to report a crime. I do agree with that as a general principle, OUTSIDE this particular subject.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't think anyone should be compelled by law to report any crime that they have knowledge or suspicions of, unless you are actively encouraging, involved in the commission of the crime, helping to cover up the crime, lying to investigators, or have some legal obligation to protect the individual who was/will be harmed you should face no legal punishment.

 

This is how US law currently is in most states with a few exceptions for certain professions that work with children (teachers, daycare workers, medical etc.) might be legally required to report suspected abuse. Someone who has a legal responsibility to care for the victim or legal obligation to protect the interests of the victim like someone with a fiduciary responsibility have a legal obligation to protect their clients.

 

Outside of those special classes, you generally do not have a legal obligation to report crimes that may be/have been committed, whether you are their priest, spouse, neighbor, friend or a random stranger and I don't think there should be. 

There is not much I agree with you on as we both well know. But I agree in a yes and no context.

I agree in the sense that long term I don't want to foster a "big brother" society where scrutiny presumes guilt of the accused.

 

HOWEVER, under the guise of "freedom of religion" these assholes are still cowards. If I have to choose between protecting my religion, or protecting a child molester, the choice seems obvious to anyone with morals.

But you bring up a good point outside the issue of priests or this particular subject. There can be lots of situations where someone witnesses a crime like a murder or a robbery, and can feel like they will risk their life if they come forward, and they may have family and friends that could be harmed if they did come forward.

That is why in most places you are not obligated to report a crime. I do agree with that as a general principle, OUTSIDE this particular subject.

I agree. The church or the religion doesn't count. The catholic church spent decade after decade protecting child molesters. They are unworthy to use words like honesty when it comes to protecting people who have confessed to a crime.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree. The church or the religion doesn't count. The catholic church spent decade after decade protecting child molesters. They are unworthy to use words like honesty when it comes to protecting people who have confessed to a crime.

 

amen, and as for the "filipino guerillas" stuff, that is so fucking typical.  anytime anyone calls the church on their bullshit, they parade out the relatively few of them in history who have actually had a moral backbone (and often those people were actually in trouble with the hierarchy at the time).

this has nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with the fact that many high positions in the church are occupied by sexual abusers of every kind, and they look after their own.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree. The church or the religion doesn't count. The catholic church spent decade after decade protecting child molesters. They are unworthy to use words like honesty when it comes to protecting people who have confessed to a crime.

 

amen, and as for the "filipino guerillas" stuff, that is so fucking typical.  anytime anyone calls the church on their bullshit, they parade out the relatively few of them in history who have actually had a moral backbone (and often those people were actually in trouble with the hierarchy at the time).

this has nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with the fact that many high positions in the church are occupied by sexual abusers of every kind, and they look after their own.

I'd like to be around when the last brick of the last church falls and hits the last priest in the fucking skull...

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I agree with the priests. If

I agree with the priests. If they have to report such things, then people will stop talking to them about it, and what little help they may provide will be gone.

Confidentiality between a doctor - patient or priest - follower or psychiatrist - patient, etc. should be respected. Else the people who have whatever problems they come to these people with will go deeper underground and never get the help they need, creating more victims when they lash out or succumb to their desires.

It'll affect more than just molesters too. People will say, he has to report this crime, he probably has to report that crime as well, and the trust is just gone.

As despicable as child molestation is, it is not sufficiently any different from any other crime that causes harm. Once you open the window into breaking confidentiality for molestation, it's not a big jump to add murder. Then assault. Then threats. And then what barrier is there for victim-less crimes like speeding or smoking weed or disliking the current government?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I agree with the priests too

Forcing employees of religions to act as police informers is dangerous.

If they have to be informers then presumably everybody else has to be too.


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
I have to ask a question, I

I have to ask a question, I am somewhat ignorant of this but I do know that in cases of doctors at least there are certain exceptions to the confidentiality agreements, usually in the concept of them posing a clear danger to themselves or others. If such regulations exist, could they be applied to the confessional reasonably?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Depends where you are. There

Depends where you are. There are no exceptions in some places, which is as it should be.
I'm sure they could be applied to religion, but it'd be a violation of the US constitution. So a president will have to say its a good thing before it becomes standard policy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


araujo03
Theist
Posts: 41
Joined: 2012-05-01
User is offlineOffline
Attorney–client

Attorney–client privilege - same thing


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:I have to ask a

Joker wrote:

I have to ask a question, I am somewhat ignorant of this but I do know that in cases of doctors at least there are certain exceptions to the confidentiality agreements, usually in the concept of them posing a clear danger to themselves or others. If such regulations exist, could they be applied to the confessional reasonably?

 

http://www.enotes.com/healthcare-reference/doctor-patient-confidentiality

 

This site lists the state by state laws for doctors. Some have laws that require doctors to report certain crimes- mostly child physical or sexual abuse, a few have laws requiring psychiatrists to notify police if a patient becomes dangerous. No state has attempted to apply similar laws to confessionals.

 

My only objection is making it mandatory because it can, and sometimes does happen that a doctor could be charged with not reporting something when it isn't at all clear the doctor should have. For example, suppose a child has a broken arm and the doctor is convinced that the story of the child falling off his bike is true. So not thinking anything of it, the doctor treats the injury and moves on to the next patient.

 

Next week the child is beat to death, a police investigation ensues and they quickly discover the child was at the doctor last week. Suddenly the doctor can be facing legal and professional consequences for not reporting the injury to police, even though there was not necessarily any reason for the doctor to know the broken arm was anything other than an accident.

 

I think the vast majority of doctors would willingly notify police if they are truly convinced that some type of abuse is happening. You don't need to threaten them with legal consequences. 

 

If any person, doctor or not, is such scum that they wouldn't act to protect a child they had reason to believe is being abused, they are probably going to ignore the law anyway. I see such laws as increasing the potential of making an innocent and good person a criminal while doing little if anything to achieve their stated purpose. It would be interesting to see stats on reports of abuse by doctors in states where it is mandatory compared to those where it is voluntary. It is probably out there somewhere, maybe I will try to find it later.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Joker

Beyond Saving wrote:

Joker wrote:

I have to ask a question, I am somewhat ignorant of this but I do know that in cases of doctors at least there are certain exceptions to the confidentiality agreements, usually in the concept of them posing a clear danger to themselves or others. If such regulations exist, could they be applied to the confessional reasonably?

 

http://www.enotes.com/healthcare-reference/doctor-patient-confidentiality

 

This site lists the state by state laws for doctors. Some have laws that require doctors to report certain crimes- mostly child physical or sexual abuse, a few have laws requiring psychiatrists to notify police if a patient becomes dangerous. No state has attempted to apply similar laws to confessionals.

 

My only objection is making it mandatory because it can, and sometimes does happen that a doctor could be charged with not reporting something when it isn't at all clear the doctor should have. For example, suppose a child has a broken arm and the doctor is convinced that the story of the child falling off his bike is true. So not thinking anything of it, the doctor treats the injury and moves on to the next patient.

 

Next week the child is beat to death, a police investigation ensues and they quickly discover the child was at the doctor last week. Suddenly the doctor can be facing legal and professional consequences for not reporting the injury to police, even though there was not necessarily any reason for the doctor to know the broken arm was anything other than an accident.

 

I think the vast majority of doctors would willingly notify police if they are truly convinced that some type of abuse is happening. You don't need to threaten them with legal consequences. 

 

If any person, doctor or not, is such scum that they wouldn't act to protect a child they had reason to believe is being abused, they are probably going to ignore the law anyway. I see such laws as increasing the potential of making an innocent and good person a criminal while doing little if anything to achieve their stated purpose. It would be interesting to see stats on reports of abuse by doctors in states where it is mandatory compared to those where it is voluntary. It is probably out there somewhere, maybe I will try to find it later.

 

That's a good point... I wonder what the proper line to take is. On the one hand there could perhaps be an allowance granting a doctor/priest/etc. immunity from prosecution for violating it in a clear and present danger sense...but that could lead to abuses too.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I agree with

Vastet wrote:
I agree with the priests. If they have to report such things, then people will stop talking to them about it, and what little help they may provide will be gone.

It's utterly tragic, but somewhat true. I do have other questions regarding this though. I know that the priest has the authority (and the duty I assume) to urge the person to turn himself in to authorities in the case of criminal manners. I know he can not disclose anything that does happen in the sacrament though (and frankly, I never thought of the aspect of it that was put forth by Vastet in the quoted post there). What I DO wonder though, is if it has any further implications. 

In cases of child rape (ie. the topic of this thread), suppose a priest confesses his sins related to this disgusting crime, to another priest in the very same church. We know the confidentiality is absolute in the doctrines. While it is not allowed to divulge the information, is it permitted to perhaps do something different? Maybe there is an opportunity to catch the monster red-handed in the act based on information learned in the confessional. If that's the case, is the priest who was told of the crime allowed to put himself in a situation where he witnesses the crime, and is then permitted to turn a priest into the authorities? Or is he not?

If the sanctity of the confidentiality extends to that, then what you have now, is a criminal who has confessed his sins and gained a clear conscience (to recharge, re-violate, and re-confess again, and again and again potentially, especially if said priest has heard the same confession on more than one occasion), and the priest who heard the confession, is left between a rock and a hard place. What's more important? The infallible confidentiality? Or saving other children from an indescribably disgusting crime? I really do not know the answer to this question as far as Catholic dogma goes, but I do wonder.  

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
araujo03

araujo03 wrote:

Attorney–client privilege - same thing


So basically, the church is standing up for criminals' rights? Are you shitting me?

Granted, I have little love of "Shield" laws that protect people from facing due criminal punishment for their actions, but to READ a theist (and probable catholic) agreeing with what so many ex-catholics have said here already, well...

that's like having one's cake and eating it, too!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

I hate to speak well of my favorite ex-religion but I have come across a few references that avoids such laws yet accomplishes the same end. The absolution of the confessional is made conditional upon confessing crimes to the authorities. I don't think much of it, way too many loopholes, but a step in the right direction.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


araujo03
Theist
Posts: 41
Joined: 2012-05-01
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:araujo03

Kapkao wrote:

araujo03 wrote:

Attorney–client privilege - same thing


So basically, the church is standing up for criminals' rights? Are you shitting me?

Granted, I have little love of "Shield" laws that protect people from facing due criminal punishment for their actions, but to READ a theist (and probable catholic) agreeing with what so many ex-catholics have said here already, well...

that's like having one's cake and eating it, too!

 

No the church is not standing up for criminals - you are wrong again - wow what a life you live.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
araujo03 wrote:Kapkao

araujo03 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

araujo03 wrote:

Attorney–client privilege - same thing


So basically, the church is standing up for criminals' rights? Are you shitting me?

Granted, I have little love of "Shield" laws that protect people from facing due criminal punishment for their actions, but to READ a theist (and probable catholic) agreeing with what so many ex-catholics have said here already, well...

that's like having one's cake and eating it, too!

 

No the church is not standing up for criminals - you are wrong again - wow what a life you live.

This is true. The church is not standing up for criminals. That would involve outing them as criminals. The church is hiding them, moving them (to places where they can likely continue to rape children) and really do nothing else useful on the matter. I'd have to consider that even worse, considering that they're allowing the cycle of abuse to continue. You definitely can't ex-communicate them for something as petty for raping children can you? No, you have to do something more serious than that (in the eyes of the Catholic Church of course)

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:If the

Jabberwocky wrote:
If the sanctity of the confidentiality extends to that, then what you have now, is a criminal who has confessed his sins and gained a clear conscience (to recharge, re-violate, and re-confess again, and again and again potentially, especially if said priest has heard the same confession on more than one occasion), and the priest who heard the confession, is left between a rock and a hard place.

Well, to be honest, that's what happens when you lay all responsibility for everything at the foot of god, like many religions do. Molestation is merely one of thousands of crimes a christian can commit, yet be forgiven for immediately thereafter. All they have to do is ask, and mean it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
"Bob's a member of a

"Bob's a member of a religious organization" isn't any better justification for forcing Bob to report crimes than "Bob lives next door."

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.