Much ink has been spilled by Catholics over the new film Conclave—and not by way of praise. Directed by Edward Berger, it is a piece of anti-Catholic propaganda posing as a film—and it is very successful in that. But what will be said here (and isn’t being said enough elsewhere) is that I think the film is a warning to liberals within and without the Church to prepare for the death of Pope Francis.
Conclave begins at the deathbed of the pope, a liberal pope who had lost his faith—not in God, but in the Church. His sudden passing begins the darting glances and heavy anxieties of liberal cardinals who begin to wonder and whisper what will become of the Holy Father’s progressive legacy and whether the conservative African cardinal will reverse decades of “progress.” God forbid the rabid traditionalist and that antiquated Latin liturgy he clings to.
So the Curia assembles at the Vatican, and so begins the conclave—and it is thick with all the intrigue, suspicion, machinations, and pacing typical of a political whodunit.
Among the mysteries at play around the scheming cardinals is the appearance of a prelate that no one knew about—the Archbishop of Kabul, whom the late pope made a cardinal secretly, in pectore: His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Benitez. As the leading figures dramatically rise and fall in and out of favor with the Sistine Chapel votes—complete with character assassinations, risqué exposés, suicide bombers, secret documents in secret compartments, and mounting tensions over the direction of the Catholic Church—Cardinal Benitez emerges as an unexpected favorite and is elected pope, in a sequence that seems orchestrated by the late pope (a chess player, of course).
It is then the story takes a very strange turn that I have no qualms in spoiling. Benitez is discovered as an intersex person, having both male and female anatomy. The late pope knew this and clearly desired to see this hermaphrodite succeed him and usher in a new era for the Church. The Dean of the College of Cardinals accepts this revelation as the will of God and Pope Innocent XIV, ovaries and all, is ordained. White smoke billows. The crowd cheers. Change has come at last. The Church can finally move forward out of the Dark Ages. Roll credits.
While the plot is cliché with paper-thin twists and turns, Conclave is a striking and commanding piece of cinematic art, with solid performances from A-list actors including Ralph Fiennes, John Lithgow, and Stanley Tucci. Conclave is definitely buzzing its way to the Academy Awards. But, as everyone knows, the Academy Awards are no longer for cinematic excellence. They exist to give accolades and attention to films that communicate the correct message in the wider agenda of social conditioning. Every nominee and winner must sound a clarion call to advance according to the progressive powers that propel the entertainment industry.
Conclave is just such award bait and has gained much applause, though not from the rooftops—that would be gauche—and will almost certainly cash in on Oscar night. And it is receiving this praise because it is a glossy complaint against a stodgy Church and paints a picture that only the wildest liberal fantasy could conceive. The Pope’s health continues to decline, and he recently made known his desire to forgo the century-old papal tradition of the triple interlocking casket, opting for a simple zinc-lined wooden coffin instead. Just as he began his papacy by rejecting the mozzetta and red shoes, he will eventually close his papacy with a simplicity that breaks with ancient tradition.
Conclave is focused on that progressive movement that Pope Francis has apparently encouraged during his pontificate. The soaring production values and dedicated performances lend credence to this film’s raison d’être as a picturesque protest against the “backwardism” of the Church that would undo all the liberal feeling Francis has allowed to flourish. It is an artistic cry against what Francis himself, in his off-the-cuff way, called the “disease of nostalgia,” and as such, is a propaganda piece against the Catholic Church, which is built on tradition.
The film is rife, and even rank, with objections to tradition. When Cardinal Benitez is first introduced to the Curia at lunch, he is asked to give the blessing. He recites the standard “Bless us, O Lord, and these Thy gifts…” and at “Amen” the cardinals settle to their seats but are interrupted and annoyed when Benitez carries on with improvisations beyond the rote formula. “Come now, you stuffy old Church,” says Conclave, “live a little, move beyond the narrow confines you have held to for centuries.”
And what lies beyond is also made crystal clear. One of the liberal Cardinals says that, if elected, he would lead a Church that had “commonsense” about gays and divorce, more women in the curia, more tolerance of other religions within the Church, and no more Latin liturgy or families with ten children. A Church of DEI nirvana. Now that’s progress.
Though this outlay is explicit and eye-rolling, there are more subtle influences in the film, such as the signature moment when the Cardinal Dean (played painstakingly by Fiennes) delivers a homily to open the conclave. He says that the Church’s gift and strength is its variety and diversity and that faith is a living thing walking hand in hand with doubt. Certainty, he says, is the enemy of tolerance and diversity, for with certainty, there is no mystery and no need for faith. He prays that they elect a pope who doubts, who sins, who asks forgiveness, and carries on.
Carry on, indeed. Carry on and deal with doubt. The certainty of dogma is dusty and outdated. Carry on all the way to a pope with a uterus, fighting and fending off the rightwing smears that plague forward-thinking pontificates. Carry on to a new Church and a new God. The Church, says Cardinal Benitez, is not tradition, not the past, “the Church is what we do next.” Brilliant. Doctrine should change with the times and who are we to judge the brave new world of today? The Church should either evolve or dissolve. Carry on and don’t mind the feeling of uncertainty. Have faith, right?
This is slick and sly rhetoric. But on the whole, Conclave is a loud apologia for the spirit of a liberal papacy as the secular powers-that-be fear Donald Trump’s hard-and-fast return to the White House. It is a warning to liberals with any concern about the influence of the papacy and the power of Catholics in the world about what might come next, what a sliding back to a neolithic stupidity that hates homosexuals and loves dead languages.
It is all ignorant absurdity on one hand, but on the other, Conclave exhibits a conniving misperception of the reality of God, the Church, and human salvation.
This misperception is well summed up in the bizarre conclusion of Benitez being an intersex individual. When asked why he chose not to have his uterus and ovaries removed when he had the chance, he says, “I am what God made me.” In this is a very common argument. God made this man a hermaphrodite, so he should be allowed to embrace that. God made that man a homosexual and he should be allowed to embrace that. God made this man trapped in a woman’s body, so he should be allowed to embrace that. And the rest of us must embrace it.
But this position, though popular, is ridiculous in its logic. Did God make pedophiles and psychopathic murderers what they are, and we should all embrace that as well? Of course not. The misunderstanding here lies in the fact that God does not make deviations in nature. He does not create imperfection, deformation, or aberration. Such things, whether by disease or condition or accident, is the fruit of sin and fallen nature. God allows such things to take place, just as He allows death, but He does not make things that are unnatural or askew with the expectation (or the option) that they are considered natural or normal—much less part of a divine plan. Much good can come from evil, but to argue that our disorders are ordained by God is inherently incorrect.
The liberals are fearful to surrender the territory they see as held by the attitude and atmosphere of Pope Francis’s papacy, whether they are right or wrong about that. It is true that this pope has not been a strong champion of tradition, per se—for all the good and true that he has stood for—and in that, the left has hailed him as an ally for the progressive agenda, often insidiously interpreting his casual comments to support suggestions of the Church moving towards the acceptance of homosexuality, irregular relationships, and inclusive worship. The prospect of a pope getting explicit about the woke agenda, or freeing the Latin Mass from its restrictions, or recommitting Catholics to the bedrock of traditional Church teaching is a horror that Conclave looks to capture.
It is fascinating that such a film exists—and that it should receive, as a piece of mainstream religious storytelling, such attention in its creation and criticism. Though it may easily be passed off as a cloak-and-dagger Vatican thriller, Conclave betrays a serious concern that the world has for the Church, though it often acts with shrugging indifference of such stifling spiritualism.
Conclave suggests a deep apprehension about the Church by its existence and its acclaim, and it is a dread that the liberals will lose their foothold. Bishop Robert Barron has said that Catholics should “run away” from Conclave—and perhaps they should. But Conclave also provides, in its warning, a most revealing glimpse into the acknowledged might and majesty of the Catholic Church, and it is interesting to witness such a compliment from the cunning enemy.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Every created thing has a nature, a purpose.
All the bones and tendons in the hand make its purpose clear.
Same with the sharpness and hardness of a bird’s beak.
Same with the way the gametes in the male and female line up with one another.
Medical science and man’s ingenuity attempt to devise a corrective when an infant is born with an impairment of some organ or structure due to some generic misfire. Sickle-cell anemia, say, or cleft palate, or club foot, or Downs Syndrome.
“I am what God made me,” is as ridiculous an argument as it sounds in those contexts. We do not celebrate cleft palates, nor do we call people who oppose cleft palates “cleftphobic.”
Why would we view the same argument as any less ridiculous when it is offered in defense of malformed genitalia?
Indeed, the issue of what should be done about birth defects is not the point here. It’s whether “gender” — i.e., how someone feels — trumps the biological, X-Y chromosomal sexes. Actual male and female.
And, quite obviously, it does not. Or Benitez/Bergoglio would not be forced to engage in such twisted logic and painfully exaggerated virtue signaling.
Here I go again brineyman, I apologize for repeating, but sickle cell trait actually evolved in Africa to protect those who inherit it from the effects of severe malaria. It’s something that can benefit us where malaria’s prevalent, not a genetic misfire.
However, the downside can be for children born to parents who both carry the sickle cell trait. Their children have a one in four chance of inheriting sickle cell anemia which can shorten your life & be very painful. Many more people have the trait as opposed to the anemia, so overall it’s been a mutation beneficial to survival.
In the name of the Father, come Lord Jesus.
“Intersex” is really not a thing outside of popular culture and media. You can be born with an ambiguous presentation . A DNA test will reveal gender whether it’s female with chromosomal differences , male with genital anomalies, etc.
I’m not qualified to explain much more but I have a family member who works in a department specializing in these matters and from what I understand, at puberty secondary sexual characteristics true to DNA can emerge making biological sexual identity easier to recognize.
There’s a British woman doctor at the University of Manchester who has written quite a lot about this subject and was interviewed when the Olympics women’s boxing controversy came up.
Homosexuality is neither a deviation nor a fruit of sin and fallen nature—it’s perfectly natural, and anything the Bible might say to the contrary is simply not true. Conclave makes the best of a bad situation (the Catholic Church) by imagining something hopeful emerging from it. Someday this nightmare will end and humanity will look back and laugh at religion. In fact, it’s already laughing—Conclave is really just a ripple of sweet, low laughter.
I haven’t watched the film & it’s not my intention to, but is the plot about a member of the Catholic hierarchy suffering from SSA or from a birth defect? Those are two different things.
Dear Dylan, this vital element seems to have been missing in your education –
The unique life & very clear teachings of the historical Jesus Christ of Nazareth (as passed down to us in 27 texts given us by 9 eye-witnesses) makes it plain that faith in and obedience to God’s commands is mandatory for our hope of an eternity of joy, liberated at last from the ever-worstening nightmare of this world.
THIS is the context that energizes wise people to forgo their own will & ungodly urges, so as to bring our unruly human nature into line with our Saviour’s example.
In that sense ‘religion’ is the most significant factor in the life of every person.
Though, long ago many stopped speaking in terms of the binding power of ‘religion’ to think of it as: ‘The Joy of Companionship with The Most Admirable Person Who Ever Walked This Erth’; Christ Jesus who now lives forever, well-able to help those who call on His Name.
Dear Dylan: seek out a fair dinkum Christian Catholic and allow them to show you The Way (the ONLY way) that makes sense of everything. You’ll never regret it!
According to the Gospels, Jesus called his opponents “sons of the devil” (John 8:44), called down destruction on people who wouldn’t hear him (Matthew 10:15), attacked people with a whip (John 2:13-17), demanded hatred of one’s parents as a condition for following him (Luke 14:26), and cursed a fig tree. None of that is admirable, Dr. Rice. But the real problem is the perpetuation of a 1st century way of understanding the world, including the idea that homosexuality is sinful. It isn’t, and as long as Catholics promote that belief, they are a force for harm in the world.
I cursed two fig trees just last week. They’ve been very measly in the figs they produce & became an eyesore. So off they went in the wheelbarrow.
🙂
mrscracker, you continually exhibit the most sublime combination of faith, experience, wisdom, insight, charity and homespun humour in your comments. Appointment reading, all of them. Thank you!
“But the real problem is the perpetuation of a 1st century way of understanding the world, including the idea that homosexuality is sinful.”
Do share with us where in Scripture it says that homosexuality, separate and distinct from homosexual behaviour, is sinful.
“A 1st century way of understanding of the world”? You mean, like loving your neighbour as yourself? Forgiving seventy times seven times? Having no greater love than to give one’s life for one’s friends? I guess you don’t like any of those, either? Those are distinctly 1st century ways of understanding the world. That somehow happen to have relevance these millennia later. Perhaps even more now than then.
“Jesus called his opponents [note: the Pharisees] ‘sons of the Devil'”. First, keep in mind that it was the Pharisees that opposed Jesus, not the other way around. Second, when taken in context it’s clear that this is metaphorical usage on Jesus’s part, not a literal condemnation of the Pharisees as Satan’s children.
“attacked people with a whip”. The people Jesus “attacked” were moneychangers in the temple. They were desecrating a sacred space with their enterprise. In a manner of speaking, Jesus was defending His own house against unlawful activity. Note also that he didn’t pursue the moneychangers outside the temple, nor did he take any of their possessions. There was no account of anyone being harmed as a result of this, nor was there any account of retribution against Jesus for his actions. This implies the moneychangers knew that they were in the wrong, and that Jesus was justified in expelling them.
“demanded hatred of one’s parents as a condition of following him”. Here again, we need to look at context. Jesus condemned hatred of one’s brother in the sermon on the mount, and he extolled the virtues of the ten commandments, which includes the command to HONOR your mother and father. The “1st century way of understanding” that you reference also included a strong tradition and culture of using hyperbole, which is what Jesus was doing here. The point he was making was that we need to have a proper ordering of our loves: God above all, with family coming after. Using hyperbolic language certainly gets people’s attention. It should also get people thinking, which is what I invite you to do when you encounter challenging passages in Scripture like this one.
Dear Daryl, everything that Jesus Christ did and said is admirable, including His very human anger with wicked profanities, blasphemies, false religiosity, & obstinate rejections of the truth.
The incidents you have cherry-picked and mis-interpreted merely show the actual humanity of The Incarnate, Eternal Son of God.
Jesus was & is like us in every way, except He is also Divine & without sin.
His life & teachings (and those of His Apostles) occurred in the context of our need for a ‘New Adam’, willing to lay down His life for our cleansing; &, in resurrection pour out God’s Holy Spirit on humble believers to be our Helper in overcoming our ungodly ways, so we can rightly walk with King Jesus.
For nearly 2,000 years this has been known by millions & is now known by billions of people EXPERIENTIALLY. Yet, it’s intimate personal logic & sustaining beauty remains a mystery to the unregenerate.
Your claim, dear Dylan: “homosexuality is sinful. It isn’t, and as long as Catholics promote that belief, they are a force for harm in the world.” dodges the conspicuous truth that a very large proportion of people, throughout the world, from a great diversity of religions and of no religion, consider homosexual activity to always be wrong and/or sinful.
Many active homosexuals (like you dear Dylan?), persist in a perrenial contradiction, not only of the New Testament & Catholic Catechism but of a large proportion of humankind.
That is not to say homosexual acts are worse sins than others.
With an honest confession, genuine resolve to reform, & honest intent to avoid the occasions of sin, they can be sacramentally absolved under The Blood of Jesus Christ – as if they had never occurred. Christ graciously forgets all we did wrong!
It really is every person’s free choice, under Almighty GOD’s provision.
I agree. I was told by a very old and experienced priest that it is no more difficult for someone with same sex attraction to live a chaste life than it is for one with heterosexual attraction. The problem is that we live in a fallen world, and we are all weakened by the consequences of original sin. The problem, as I see it, is the false belief in universal salvation and the consequences of dying in mortal sin. “The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.” I think it is more sinful for those, claiming to speak for the Church, to depart from the plain teachings of Jesus in these matters.
Dear Russell E. Snow: “I think it is more sinful for those, claiming to speak for the Church, to depart from the plain teachings of Jesus in these matters.”
They seem blinded by the evil one; blind to the dreadful fate they are storing up.
Sorry, I didn’t say why I didn’t respond to your mention of Jesus condemning the fig tree. The reason, quite simply, is that mrscracker answered that one far better than I ever could.
“Homosexuality is neither a deviation nor a fruit of sin and fallen nature—it’s perfectly natural, and anything the Bible might say to the contrary is simply not true.”
You assert (without evidence) that homosexuality is “perfectly natural”. What does “perfectly natural” mean? Among the definitions for “natural” that Merriam-Webster provides is this one: “Being in accordance with or determined by nature”. By this definition, then, we need to look to nature to determine if something is “natural”.
When we look at the anatomical function and ordering of the sexual organs and faculties, we see that heterosexuality is clearly ordered to the purpose and function of the sexual organs. Homosexuality, clearly, is not. Therefore, it is incorrect to refer to homosexuality as “natural” in any way.
Can homosexuality be a predominant orientation the individual did little or nothing to cause within himself? Sure. So is my disordered predilection for alcohol. That doesn’t make my alcoholism “natural” in any way. It’s a tendency I have that I’ve spent many years, and will spend the rest of my life, resisting and redirecting. It’s a burden I bear, because I know that to give in to this disorder would be to turn my back on what God calls me to do.
But you dismiss the “God” bit entirely. Then consider this. The money I would spend on what for me would be a destructive practice goes to better uses. I’m not drinking my calories. And if current studies are accurate, I’m avoiding a practice that could increase my risk for certain cancers. I’m freed from worrying about driving while impaired. And I don’t have hangovers on the morning after. I’m free from all of that.
And that is not to denigrate in any way those who drink alcohol responsibly. Their practice is properly ordered. Mine would not be. That’s the distinction.
As Church teaching involves sexuality, consider this as well: In all of the decades HIV and AIDS have been around, I’ve never once had to be concerned that my behaviour would result in my contracting HIV. Not once. It’s incredibly liberating.
See? Following what the Church teaches results in a more fruitful life. Every time. Why? Because She knows a thing or two about living a good life. Give it a shot, as Dr. Rice (and I) challenge you to do.
One can know through both our Catholic Faith and reason, that regardless of the actors or the actors desires, even if the actors are a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife, the desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature does not change the nature of the act.
Love, which is rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love is devoid of every form of lust.
We rejoice with authentic Love, because only authentic Life -affirming and Life sustaining Love can serve for The Common Good .
I saw this movie and enjoyed many elements of it, and I thought the acting was terrific. The movie points out the inappropriate politics which go along with electing the next pope. The ending did indeed take me by surprise. I dont know what would happen in real life if a hermaphrodite were made a priest. I have read that some Bishops have recently suggested that ALL seminaries require an explicit physical exam with a doctors statement indicting the potential student is in fact a male before being admitted for training. To prevent just such a situation.
Where this concerns the movie, it seems to me that the character of Cardinal Benitez, a complete unknown to the other Cardinals, came to the conclave with no expectation at all that he would be elected pope. Indeed it is impossible for any cardinal nor any Pope to guarantee who succeeds to the seat, no matter how much they want it and plot to get it, as the movie makes known.It was clear in the movie he had lived his life as a man and had made no effort to do otherwise. In revealing his true identity to Fiennes, he certainly knew there was the very real possibility that Fiennes would expose him for what he was and bring the process of his succession to a crashing halt.
I dont know what we were “supposed” to have made of this situation. It appeared to me as the movie ended that a good person would be the next Pope, and there was nothing to make me feel they would then upend church teaching on sexuality.
I think we have larger concern about who will succeed the current Pope. Most certainly this person will be a biological man. Possibly he will be one who will do the church a great deal of harm.
Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. Entertainment is not real life.
This is a Galileo Moment, and Pope Francis was typically cavalier and pre-Copernican when he said that “God made you that way.” Disproved by published genome research.
Instead of God, maybe victimization or something else in personal history? What about a hostile father experience, or an absentee father, or getting locked in by early sexual experimentation, or maybe simply being abused sexually? There is the researchable possibility of fetal growth interference by ubiquitous Endocrine Disruptive Compounds (EDCs) in some extremely rare cases, but there’s also the peculiar self admission by the bisexual novelist Andre Gide:
“[Gide]emphatically protests that he has not a word to say against marriage and reproduction (but then) suggests that it would be of benefit to an adolescent, before his desires are fixed, to have a love affair with an older man, instead of with a woman. . . the general principle admitted by Gide, elsewhere in his treatise, that sexual practice tends to stabilize in the direction where it has first found satisfaction [locked in]; to inoculate a youth with homosexual tastes seems an odd way to prepare him for matrimony” (Harold March, Gide and the Hound of Heaven, 1952).
Pope Francis has done a lot of damage to personal lives, but who am I to judge?
Seems to me Traditionalist often worship the trappings of the institution rather than living out the example and teachings of Jesus fo8nd in the New Testament.I prefer the spirit of my Vatican II Church. (Born,in 1954, raised,educated Catholic.) BA Relion Studies LaSalle University
Ms. Vincent, your unfortunate attack on Traditionalists makes the point of how Conclave divides rather than brings people together. You see things through Vatican II lens and it appears that you are worshipping the trappings of the spirit of Vatican II. I myself want no part of the spirit of Vatican II. Give me the Mass of the Ages and un-watered-down pre-Vatican II Catholicism any day. There is a big difference between pre- and post-Vatican II Catholicism.
As regards the movie, I was there to watch the acting and was not disappointed. The actors and actresses presented an entertaining product. I am however aware of the Goebbels-like shaping of the progressive message. (But try to find a movie today that does not do that.) The Progressives are presented as the good guys whilst the Traditionalists are presented as the bad guys who would undo the progressive accomplishments of the recently deceased Pope. At the end of the day I will go along with LJ’s comment that “Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. Entertainment is not real life.”
That’s a pretty judgmental statement, JoAnn, is it not? Why does it seem to you that many “traditionalists” would often rather worship mere “trappings” than following the teachings of Jesus? It seems all you’ve done in your brief comment is set up a strawman to knock down.
Do you know any “traditionalist” Catholics? Have you had conversations with the young mothers and fathers who bring their children to such Catholic parishes? Have you gone to these traditionalist peripheries to meet them where they are at, and perhaps befriend them; or do you just look askance at them, down your nose, and sweepingly accuse such individuals of preferring “trappings” to a relationship with the Lord Jesus?
Better yet, do you even consider these “traditionalists” your brothers and sisters in Christ? I know… these are a lot of questions I’m asking in response to a brief post made by someone who studied Religion at LaSalle University. But I sincerely hope you reflect upon these questions, maybe even answer them.
I consider you my sister in Christ, but your comment betrays something about your identity. I simply identify as “Catholic”; no labels, no divisions. My wife and 5 children worship with an FSSP community in a diocesan parish. I wonder if you consider that “traditonalist”… or is that reserved only for others like SSPX in your eyes? In any case, I’m guessing you also worship at a diocesan parish, yet you try to divide others by labeling those not like you as “traditionalist”, and all the while you belong to a “Vatican II” Church. Are we both not Catholic Christians?
Not to mention, my parish IS a “Vatican II Church”, because I myself, nor anyone at my parish that I know of, denies that Vatican II is legitimate in any way. Dei Verbum, for instance, is a wonderful document, rich with great teaching. Our community lives in harmony with our bishop, and we try every day to walk the narrow path in following the example of Jesus Christ. I would be willing to argue we are even more of a “Vatican II Church” than your parish is, as we “the faithful [are] able to say [and] sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to [us]”, as Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly called for (cf. SC 36, 54). It’s a joy to hear my 5 year old chant the Pater Noster -and very loudly, I might add- with our entire congregation each Sunday! I think you might enjoy the spirit of our little Catholic parish, JoAnn… that is, if you would only take the time to get to know us and not look down upon us. May God bless you.
(Born in 1987, raised, educated Catholic) M.A.: Theology from a Catholic University
That’s rather a broad statement Miss JoAnn. I attend the TLM almost weekly because we’re blessed to have that opportunity right down the road.
From my own experience there’s a great deal of fellowship and personal acts of charity amongst the TLM community. One ObGyn physician donates his services to homeless expectant mothers at a local shelter. People share food from their farms and gardens. Collections are taken up for families in need. Etc.
I don’t know if TLM attendees live out the Gospel any better or worse than NO attendees but they certainly practice Matthew 25 in their daily life.
Appreciating the Traditional Latin Mass doesn’t preclude living out the Gospel. One can have both Beauty and Charity at the same time. God bless!
This movie has an impressive cast, but I am curious – is there one among them who is a practicing, believing Catholic? I don’t think so, and for all their skills, these people – just don’t get it.
I have seen many reviews of this film, and I must admit that my favorite is that of Mr. Ben Shapiro on his show. Bishop Barron was good too, but I must say that there is one adjective that I have NOT seen attributed to it which I believe should be, and that word is: silly.
“This movie has an impressive cast, but I am curious – is there one among them who is a practicing, believing Catholic? I don’t think so, and for all their skills, these people – just don’t get it.”
Exactly. But at least they have the sense to ask themselves, whenever they need to depict an authentically Christian individual or scene: “Who should we call? Cody, the non-denominational worship leader?” The answer inevitably looks – outwardly, at least – something like “Conclave”.
I saw the movie. The reason I saw it is that I have a hunger for all things Catholic. I love Rome; I love the Vatican; I love St. Peter’s; I love the walkways; and the movie gave me glimpses of those things I have seen and loved.
Why was the film made? Hollywood is finally woken up that the audience wants to see religious shows. They have remained dead to the fact we love to see religious shows about faithful members like Sister Frances Cabrini. Though great actors will act in such dreadful and stupidly vacuous shows such as Conclave, other actors and producers have found their “groove” and will be producing and making excellent movies about Catholic saints. Let’s be real here – when Mormons can find the meaning about Catholic saints something good is happening.
No, I don’t think I will be attending anymore dreadful shows even if they happen in Rome.
How plausible is the idea that a secret Cardinal is out there working in the shadows?
Sounds plausible to me but hopefully it’s not someone like the character in this film.
🙂
Recommended – ‘A Hidden Life’
A TRUE story
“…. “I am what God made me.” In this is a very common argument. God made this man a hermaphrodite, so he should be allowed to embrace that…. And the rest of us must embrace it.
But this position, though popular, is ridiculous in its logic….”
“The misunderstanding here lies in the fact that God does not make deviations in nature. He does not create imperfection, deformation, or aberration. Such things, whether by disease or condition or accident, is the fruit of sin and fallen nature… He does not make things that are unnatural or askew… but to argue that our disorders are ordained by God is inherently incorrect.”
Shame on you. I have a son, Joe, who has Autism. I have friends that have children that have Down’s Syndrome – These are not children of the fruit of sin and fallen nature. They are Baptized and Confirmed members of Holy-Mother-Church.
Please, if there are any lawyers reading this the Americans with Disabilities Act provides an important tool to fight discrimination. Please file a complaint with an appropriate federal agency for our children. You can contact me at Franciscan.Solidarity@aol.com
Mr. Myres, disease, disability, and death are all results of the Fall. Every one of us was born with the disability of Original Sin.
A disability or disease is not our identity.
God bless your son and your family.
Middle School mean girls go to Conclave.
Perhaps the best way of dealing with such films is simple: ignore them, don’t go to see them, when talking to friends simply say it is a novelist trying to tell God what to do. That’s what I did with non-catholic friends