Per request, and in keeping with the principle of striking while the iron is hot, here is a thread to discuss the movie CATHOLICS from 1973. The discussion here presupposes that you have watched the movie and WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS.
Don’t say you didn’t know.
I will rewatch the movie over the weekend before I have any comments but please opine at will.
Okay, here goes.
I don’t understand (in light of the revelation we get as the visitor is taken to the helicopter) why the abbot first mounted such a vigorous defense of their practice of the old mass. If it was all just words to him, why would he go in ready to fight for it?
Then there is his resignation and request of a transfer. Why now? If it is a matter of integrity, we’d think he would have stepped down earlier. And why ask to remain in the order while leaving the community he calls home? I understand his staying because this is the only life he knows and it is somehow comfortable to him, but why ask also to be transferred to a new monastery? Wouldn’t he want either to stay in the community that is his life or simply leave altogether?
And why is he so willing to run interference for the superior in Rome? I get that, in some sense, he may have no dog in the dogmatic fight, but in that case why not just not fight? Especially, if he is going to resign anyway? Why first mount a defense of the monks and their practice, then roll over and fight for the superior against the monks?
What is motivating him?
I can understand why he would have stayed on all these years as a member of the community and even as abbot, but if those factors motivated him, I don’t understand why he would now step down and ask to move. Actually I can (maybe he was happy to just go along for various reasons, but he now, in the midst of this crisis, realizes he can’t lead his monks through it with integrity since he doesn’t share their convictions) but in that case I would not expect him to agree to fight for the superior to get his monks in line.
I can understand why he would fight for the old mass and the monastery’s practices, and I can understand why he would fight for the superior, but I can’t figure out why he would do one and then abruptly do the other.
There is a theme of authority and obedience I haven’t fully come to terms with. Maybe that is the key to his behavior: his integrity is his obedience to his superior. But if the whole thing is about blind obedience, it makes it all a lot less sympathetic to me.
First, a little background. In the early to mid ’70s the ABC broadcast network was a perennial “also-ran” in the TV ratings. (The young whippersnappers of today will scarce be able to comprehend an age in which there were only three broadcast networks, NBC, CBS and ABC; joined by the PBS Public Broadcast System; joined only later by local UHF stations.) ABC, finding their attempts to imitate the fare on the other networks failing, branched out a bit and tried to attract a younger, more socially aware audience. Thus began the age of the TV movie, movies produced to be shown not in the cinema but directly on television. For a time they got away with some interesting stuff. Although it was written and originally produced in Britain for ITV, CATHOLICS was first broadcast in the US as part of this effort. I was a kid but I remember it quite well. (I’ve also always been a fan of its melancholy and beautiful soundtrack music. I made an unsuccessful attempt at one point to find a recording.)
The script was written by Brian Moore based on his own novel. I’ve read it. I must confess that this is one of the few times that I’ve found a movie version superior to the source material. You can tell Moore adapted his own book because it keeps much of the dialog and situations and ideas from the novel. At times the movie resembles a filmed play. Actor Martin Sheen was was pre-Apocalypse Now and while recognizable was a mid-level movie and TV performer. The Brits in the movie had long careers behind them and were well known at the time in Britain but much lesser known in the USA.
Second, some context. Although almost a decade on when this movie was produced, the tremors in the Catholic Church over Vatican II had still not stopped. Even on a secular level people living in the ’60s were conscious of being in a time of change. The shaking of the foundations. Where would all this lead? If change is coming where will it stop? Will it stop? The movie projects us forward to a time where the Church is preparing for a Vatican “IV”! Apparently this will involve some sort of Buddhist/Christian interfaith dialog and a relaxing of certain traditional dogmas. An example of this latter is that it will no longer be necessary to believe that the bread and wine is actually changed to the body and blood of Christ. The movie hints that the Curia no longer supports the Latin Mass and the Rite of Confession.
Into all this stumbles the Abbot and monks of an isolated monastery on an island off the cost of Ireland. (Or do they stumble? At first the Abbot presents himself as rather naïve but at each point he reveals a certain sophistication that frequently startles Father Kinsella. The Abbot grasps his situation immediately. He effortlessly parries Father K’s early attempts to bully him with Church authority.)
I guess what I admire most about this movie is that it does what the producers of the God’s Not Dead series would simply find incomprehensible. The movie asks a bunch of questions without feeling the need to provide ready answers. There are characters in the movie who have ready answers of course. And they are given their say. Moore doesn’t let us off the hook. In the end we are pushed back into ourselves and asked to confront the question that can only be asked by ourselves. The Abbot makes his terrible choice and enters his own exclusive hell.
There are any number of dialogs to be found in this movie but the central dialog is between Abbot and Fr Kinsella who reveal two visions of the church. But notice the pov that is excluded. The naïve, dare I say, fundamentalism of the monks is marginalized. The “debate” is taking place between two individuals, neither of whom can enter into the life of the traditionalist Church. Abbot’s faith is hollowed out. All he has is the form. He knows what works. Kinsella is a hip young politician. I think Moore intends us to think his social justice viewpoint is sincere. But for Kinsella that’s what the church is. He practices yoga but can you imagine him praying? Crying out to God in despair?
Porphyry, you’re right. There is a bit of “inside baseball” present. But that’s why I was interested in other folk’s perspectives. But I’ve been there. Asked those questions. Tried to communicate with those who found different answers. Or who actually found an answer at all.
I’ll have more to say but I’ve kind of run out of gas.
In the early to mid ’70s the ABC broadcast network was a perennial “also-ran” in the TV ratings.
I recall that the WFB-GVidal debate in the ’68 election was an attempt–by ABC–to create some drama and get attention: boy did they get it.
But back to the film: I desperately want someone to offer an explanation of the Abbot’s motives.
Okay, I need to be clearer about the moments.
I’m perplexed by his overnight conversion.
When he went to bed, he was defending the monks. He had left Kinsella on the back foot: “I can appeal to some ecumenical congress and you have to leave me (and the Latin mass in place) until it’s too late for your PR purposes.”
first thing in the morning, he said, I will do the superior’s bidding, and bring the monks in line, but also, I want to be transferred after I do that.
I can follow how it plays out after Kinsella rejects his resignation, but it is that overnight about-face that I’m struggling with.
That might work. I’m honestly not sure. I sometimes get the impression that I am a defective human, in that whatever glimmer of spirituality I’ve ever had has been totally differently from anyone else’s I’ve ever met, and I really just can’t grok the spiritual lives of most people who have shared something of their spirituality with me.
In this case, the particular hurdle, of being unable physically to utter the words of a prayer, is totally foreign to me. I can’t even begin to imagine what that psychological state could be like. I mean, I obviously understand losing one’s faith. And I understand not caring to pray. But I can’t imagine his state.
All this is to say, perhaps I’m just not suited to understanding his character.
Trevor Howard’s performance as Abbot is the centerpiece of the movie. What I admire about it most. After rewatching the movie I agree we are presented with a certain amount of ambiguity in his character and his motives. As historically conscious as he is revealed to be, did he really not know that the mount on which they conducted the Latin Mass was the scene of important events during Cromwell’s invasion? Although hs own faith has been hollowed out he clearly still loves the life of the monk. He willingly assumes the pitiable position of trying to protect something he cannot share. Kinsella is the classic idealist who loves all humankind as a concept but doesn’t love people as they are.
Prayer as a practice that motivates not hope but depression is a powerful motif. I know self-identified atheists who deeply grieve what they have lost. The celebrations of the so-called “New Atheists” are not universal. Might it not be appropriate to shed a tear at God’s funeral?
I think it might have been a last-ditch escape attempt. He acquiesces quickly enough when Kinsella tears up his request. I think he did not expect to be successful. As far as the Mass I think he was motivated mostly by the response of the people.
As far as the other monks he’s defending a way of life. Tangentially perhaps this helps explain in part why I’m not a militant atheist. Not for lack of the courage of my convictions. Ultimately I just don’t want to be responsible for making someone unhappy.
Has anyone seen Silence? I just finished the book, which was a really good read.
I saw the movie which was very powerful but I have not read the book. Odd for me because it’s usually the other way round. The movie raised a lot of questions for me. Mainly about the idea of conversion. I once knew a fellow who “converted” to Tibetan Buddhism and later became a monk. I never really had a chance to have a conversation about it but I couldn’t help wondering what he found in Tibetan thought he could not find in Christianity? The movie raised the same questions for me. I understand the Christian impulse to evangelize but the western missionary movement was so tied up with economic and political colonialism that it makes me suspicious of it. Evangelization seemed to provide an ideological foundation for the entire effort as if it were something more substantial than a power grab.
Of course personal spiritual conflict is Endo’s true subject. And he does at least question the missionary effort to some degree. I would ask Rodrigues and Garupe what they think they have that is not already present in Japanese thought? And what exactly are the Japanese converts actually “converting” to? As I would ask my former acquaintance what Tibetan Buddhism has that is not already present in Christianity? What was he “converting” to? Can you really enter into another system of thought if you are not native to it? Without having absorbed from birth all the hidden cultural assumptions that support it?
—
The character of Father Kinsella reminds me of an anecdote I think I’ve shared before in another thread. I once knew another fellow who was heavily courted by the Jesuit Fathers at the university he attended. This person was conflicted about his faith however and he replied to one such effort to evangelize from a Father, “But I don’t even know if I still believe in God!” To which the Father replied, “What difference does that make?” This is what I recall when I consider Kinsella. Personal spirituality really doesn’t enter into it. The Church is a platform, a method.
A personal anecdote which I may have already shared as well – I once asked a Presbyterian minister how I could have an authentic experience of the reality of God. He actually grew a bit angry and basically accused me of self-indulgence. For him personal faith could best be expressed through social action. I can’t damn him for his conviction but how to explain that for me any personal effort must first spring from personal spiritual experience? Now I wonder how far this minister was from the Jesuits? There’s work to be done!
I think the reason, at least in part, why the churches in the West are emptying in droves is because they cannot provide that one thing that justifies the rest. The altar is empty. Transubstantiation does not occur. How long will the church survive as a loveless marriage that only stays together for the kids?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert