Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 October 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 27

NATO reporting name for PAK FA

As far as I know, the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) does not have a NATO reporting name. Any idea as to when, and if, it will get one? Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Presumably when it enters active service. Rojomoke (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This page has Type: Su-50 PAK-FA, NATO Reporting Name: "Flatfish". However I can't find anything more reliable to back it up. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Suicide / Crisis Helpline Vounteer

Hello. I am looking to volunteer for a suicide helpline, or organisation that deals with people in similar emotional or psychological crises, in the UK but am unable to work for the Samaritans due to being a serving police officer, which excludes me due to potential conflicts of interest regarding confidentiality. I'm struggling to think of / find similar organisations that I can work with. Does anyone have ideas or suggestions? Thanks! 2A02:C7D:A0E:4100:ACA4:6B0A:7A38:2843 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, near to you is the May Tree organization [1]. Even then though, the question of a potential conflicts of interest may still arise. It may be worth inquiring (from a professional) as to what your legal/moral duty 'actually' covers. After all, even a priest that hears confessionals -in absolute confidence- has a recognized duty sometimes, to conform to a strict protocol of disclosure when it concerns/ affects the well being of other humans. Doctors and other medical professionals also have the Caldicott Report protocol of confidentiality for guidance when it concerns the safety of others. If you can find out exactly where you stand, you may find that this is not an impediment. As a police officer, you would be very useful to such an organization. Not wanting to criticize the Samaritans in any way at all, because the volunteers do a great job. It is just some of them (I think ) have come from walks-of-life where they have not witnessed a real life crises – if you know what I mean – and all the real life complications that someone finds themselves in. Your experiences may be able to defuse issues earlier. Or there is Help a rough sleeper. Catch them before they become suicidal. So yes, go for it ! --Aspro (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Samaritan view on why they don't accept sworn police officers is here [2]. Here is their policy on confidentiality [3].

Also while this is off topic, your claim on priests is unsupported by any references and simply isn't true. The Catholic church for example views the confidentiality of the Sacrament of Penance (i.e. the Seal of the Confessional (Catholic Church)) as absolute. It's true that the civil laws if any which sometimes protect these religious views may not be absolute, e.g. Confessional privilege (United States) (although I'm not sure of the US [4] as these seeming to be still tested) or Priest–penitent privilege in England reflective of the fact that other parts of society disagree with this view, but that doesn't change the church's view.

Breaking the seal is grounds for automatic Excommunication (Catholic Church). It doesn't matter whether the penitent is a serial sexual abuser of children who the priest believes is likely to continue to do so (perhaps because it's their fourth confession). Or tells the priest they're going to release a dirty bomb or deadly bioweapon in Hong Kong. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (As mentioned in our article, the priest could stop the confession in exceptional circumstances, but they still can't reveal what was said.) How people personally feel about the Catholic Church's view is too offtopic and irrelevant to discuss here. Other religious traditions may not be so strict, but the claim "even a priest that hears confessionals -in absolute confidence- has a recognized duty sometimes, to conform to a strict protocol of disclosure when it concerns/ affects the well being of other humans" is clearly not true when one of the major branches Christianity explicitly rejects any such duty.

To make this more on topic, this does relate somewhat to the OP's dilemma. If someone is considering becoming a Catholic priest they need to reconcile themselves with accepting the absoluteness of the seal of the confessional. If they are unable to do so, they're unlikely to make a good Catholic priest and anyone from the church would surely tell them that, or potentially even try and stop them. The Samaritan view is similar and seems quite resonable, someone cannot have sworn to "prevent all offences" while simultaneously needing to maintain confidentiality except when compelled by court order or when they receive report bomb warnings or info possible acts of terrorism.

P.S. Note that as per the sources especially the last 3, the confidentiality mostly applies even when the penitent themselves want the priest to break it. In the Louisiana case, it was the child who was abused rather than the abuser who revealed the info during confession and want it to be revealed now (not sure what they said they wanted at the time). The priest can and I think even the Catholic Church agrees should counsel the the penitent to tell the police, a parent (where suitable) or someone else, and it seems can even offer to accompany the penitent. But they still can't reveal what was said. The only thing I'm uncertain of is whether, the priest is able to encourage the penitent to talk to them outside confession while making the penitent aware of what this means and how it will help the priest better assist the penitent.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, how, exactly, is a "confession" that one plans to set of a dirty bomb and act of contrition, and how could it be covered by the seal of confession? The priest cannot absolve someone of a sin he says he plans to commit, and I unsee how this would be considered an act of penitence. Given the priest can require that a murderer confess his crime under normal circumstances as a condition of absolution, I do not see a priest granting absolution for a crime not yet committed. Is there a source that says admissions of planned crimes are covered by the seal of the confessional? μηδείς (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

[11] explicitly mentions it. Not linked before but [12] also does and in fact seems to semi answer my question above, it seems the priest can explicitly ask for the info to be repeated outside confession. [13] again not linked before sort of mentions it. And I never said anything about a priest granting absolution as it was besides my point. (Actually the source mentions the obvious, absolution can't be granted which I did read while replying but already knew anyway.)

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of how the seal works (which to be fair, seems common). It applies to anything said during the sacrament of penance. It doesn't have to be a confession per se, and a confession outside the sacrament would not generally be covered (although I assume there is some leeway for when penitent felt that they were in the sacrament).

Once you appreciate that, you should understand all my earlier sources imply it even if they don't explicitly mention future crimes. (They go into detail about how almost nothing can be revealed. (Small exceptions like revealing some details but nothing which will identify the person, with the permission of the penitent to seek advice on the situation.) What they don't say is that only parts of the penance that are actually confessions are covered. (Note also a number of them mention child abuse and often imply it's likely there is a strong risk of future crimes.)

Besides, if a priest can't even reveal, after the fact and with the full permission of the penitent to a court what the penitent (then child) told them about the abuse without breaking the seal, why would they be able to reveal what a sinner told them in confession (even if part of the sin was ongoing)? Remembering that as bad as the church is at times, there's a fair chance the modern church would recognise the child almost definitely was not a sinner at least in relation to the abuse they suffered so couldn't be confessing there. (If the details are accurate the advice the priest provided seems to have been very poor, but it's not clear to me it went as far as suggesting the child was a sinner due to the abuse.) As the comments in one of the sources mention, even lawyers don't generally have to keep confidentiality when the client who's confidentiality is involved doesn't want it, but the church seems to mostly reject even this.

While I fundamentally disagree with the Catholic church's view (I'm less certain about issues like psychologists but priests are primarily there supposedly as intermediaries to deal with religious view on penance and absolution), their view isn't exactly surprising. If you start having loopholes where the priest can decide something isn't a genuine confession or they're referring to future acts or whatever and so confidentiality doesn't apply, that could arise in many circumstances, e.g. the aforementioned child rapist but also things which may not even be crimes, e.g. an adulterer. Which goes against the view of the extreme importance of confidentiality

And remember, since it's the church, we're talking about sins not crimes. AFAIK, there's virtually no situation where you could have seriously considered using a dirty bomb without having sinned. But in any case, while my terminology was a little loose, the situation could arise when someone has already planted the bomb (in fact, unless it's an automatic timer, it's still arguably a complete plan), or produced the bomb or whatever i.e. cases where there have already been both crimes and sins. I'm not sure how much absolution can be offered when the person isn't willing to try and stop the bomb, but it's a moot point.

P.S. As mentioned earlier as per our article, in some limited circumstances a priest can refuse to take confession. However while unsourced, it seems from what our article says these are faily rare. I imagine in any case where the penitent appears to be genuinely seeking absolution, even if the circumstances suggest action on their part is needed if they are truly repenant they need to hear it out. I assume the priest can try and direct the penitent to only confess their sins rather than seeking counselling as the later isn't the purpose of the sacrament. But I'm not sure if even if the person appears to be simply boasting (but with the trappings of the sacrament) whether the priest is supposed to simply refuse to hear in the first instance. Let alone if they're doing some weird mix of seeking absolution (considering this is the Catholic church so even such thoughts are likely to be sins) and counselling during something clearly sacramental. After multiple visits of apparent boasting it may be different.

I am aware that the Catholic church does sometimes simply decide the sacrament never happened, e.g. as sort of happens with matrimony. But I can't see any suggestion this ever applies to penance, in fact everything I read makes me fairly sure it doesn't really. The closest I've seen [14] [15] [16]. But while the church seems to have simply accepted the claim it wasn't sacramental, there's no suggestion they would have if e.g. the penitent told them that they revealed the info in the confessional booth, said "bless me father for I have sinned" before starting and the priest talked about absolution at the end. I'm not suggesting any of this happened in that case, simply that there are certain things which would make it unlikely the church would be willing to accept it wasn't sacramental.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil. I didn't disbelieve your earlier post, but I am still trying to get my head straight about a man who gets in the confessional box and says, "Forgive me Father, I plan to sin" and announces that he is going to set off a dirty bomb, but wants absolution before the fact. Child molestation is more of a disposition, and the priest might suspect it will continue, but the molester is asking for forgiveness of past acts. My point was that it seems really not to count as an act of contrition in the "plan to" case, even if the would-be bomber is kneeling in a confessional booth as he admits his intentions. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OT, but such a scene occurs in one of Ian Rankin's Inspector Rebus novels. The priest advises the potential criminal "that gun belongs at the bottom of the Forth" (or words to that effect), but there's no question of him contacting the authorities. This is fiction, of course, but Rankin is a novelist who likes to do his research. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I though I had chosen my words very carefully when saying: “After all, even a priest that hears confessionals -in absolute confidence- has a recognized duty sometimes, to conform to a strict protocol of disclosure when it concerns/ affects the well being of other humans.” but obliviously, from the comments above, is was too superficial. What I was alluding to: is though the seal in itself need never to be broken by a priest; as they take the privilege of being able to hear confessionals to the extent that their honour in this comes above all else. However, if they detect a modus operandi of some considerable misfeasance. They don't break the seal when discussing the modus operandi, with others which are also shepherds of their flock of sheep. Nothing discussed in the confession has to be repeated in order to make the concern and worry become clear to all, and without mentioning names, all will know where to focus upon. Don't think any tricks-of -the-trade of RC are being unfairly divulge here, as they are well known about. So, I didn't even imagine my comment would create the debate it has done. Am not, in any way going to comment on this further for obvious reasons, in that we have gone way off topic. Just wanted to clarify. Finally, coming back to the OP's question. A British police officer (as the OP knows) use discretion even when on and off duty. An thus, his experience may be very useful to a charity in when comforted with a difficult situations. A clear summation of a situation could prevent the need for lots of blue flashing lights having to be called to the scene because things got-out-of-hand. For many a time, when someone gets into crisis, they get confused by lots of conflicting advice – but if someone can calmly tell them what the law actually is they calm down. There is a simple psychological explanation for this: Cognitive dissonance. When someone in crisis doesn’t know what to believe they can not reason properly and come to terms with the right things to do. Knowing where they stand, diffuses the instinct of digging their hole even deeper. As the OP may be aware of – in any crisis there may be two other sides of the story that has driven this person to this point and s/he needs to be informed (or reminded) that the law there for them also. Think the OP's experience may be of much help to people who find their between a rock and a hard place. He mentions that he is most interest in emotional or psychological crises. He doesn't say it, but I think he has the capacity of empathy also. So, I urge the OP to go for it. --Aspro (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• A homeless charity like St Mungo's or, more explicitly religious, Street Angels, might be very happy to have a volunteer who has experience of working with and helping people on the street. However, I suspect even they might not be happy to have a serving officer - apart from the conflict of interest, a lot of vulnerable people would be distressed and probably refuse help if they thought the charity was some kind of con to turn them over to plain-clothes police (even though that has absolutely no basis in fact). Smurrayinchester 09:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• CALM (The Campaign Against Living Miserably), is a UK based organisation aiming to reduce suicide rating amongst young men. The don't take volunteers for their help line, but do provide outreach in Manchester and London.

Breathing Space Scotland is based in Edinburgh, and covers Scotland.

A Websearch for 'anti suicide helpline uk' will provide organisations that you might be able to volunteer with. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)