Seeing "Spotlight" As A Catholic

[Clyde]

My wife and I saw "Spotlight" on Saturday. I can't think of a movie that I've left feeling both "wow" and completely saddened. It's strictly because of being a Catholic.

 

When this movie first came out I was hesitant to see it because the basis of the story is the cover-up of molestation by priests in Boston. As we all know , it wasn't just Boston who had this problem. I didn't want to be slapped in the face with it. Too disturbing. I have very few heroes in life but one of the very few I have is my wife's uncle who is a legendary priest in Pittsburgh. Dude walks the walk when it comes to being Christ-like.

 

I then started hearing that the focus on the movie was not the actual abuse but, rather, the investigative reporting done by the "Spotlight" group of the Boston Globe. I love good stories like this so.... I saw it.

 

It's a really, really good movie from a movie perspective. Even at two hours it didn't seem slow or too long. Actors were compelling. Story lines were interesting. Even knowing a lot of the story you were interested. So, it's a great movie from a movie perspective.

 

However, once you're engrossed you can't just put aside your Catholicism. You can't ignore/forget just how terribly the Church has screwed this up and how many lives they've let be ruined beyond belief. At the end when they have he graphics telling the actual facts of what happened after the story "broke" in the Globe they had a graphic that showed every city that had a "major abuse" case. It just kept going and going and going. I actually teared up simply due to the volume of abuse.

 

There is no other entity like the Catholic church - good and bad. I get that. I have to keep reminding myself that the "Church" and the people who do the good deeds and make peoples' lives better every day are not always the same. One is very removed from the other. I have to keep reminding myself that the members are the ones who do what my wife's uncle does - change lives and help others cope.

 

This movie slapping me in the face again makes that harder to do. However, it's really the only option if you believe.

 

I recommend the movie . Just know that if you're a practicing Catholic it MAY hit you hard in the face and in the heart.

[nkypete]

Yes, that's why I am hesitating to see it too.

[Clyde]

Yes, that's why I am hesitating to see it too.

 

I've probably mentioned on here that my wife is from a "very Catholic" family. Mom and Aunt retired from the Diocese. Uncle is a priest. Uncle is a deacon. They're Catholic.

 

My wife couldn't see past the sadness of the issue and enjoy the movie. My mom says she will not see it. I get that.

 

I'd still recommend it. It does remind us that the Church is still made up of flawed humans who abuse power.

[nkypete]

I've probably mentioned on here that my wife is from a "very Catholic" family. Mom and Aunt retired from the Diocese. Uncle is a priest. Uncle is a deacon. They're Catholic.

 

My wife couldn't see past the sadness of the issue and enjoy the movie. My mom says she will not see it. I get that.

 

I'd still recommend it. It does remind us that the Church is still made up of flawed humans who abuse power.

 

My wife has NINE priests in her family.

[Oldbird]

Can't comment on seeing it as a Catholic; however, a few thoughts:

 

- Really enjoyed the movie.

 

- The list of places where this was an issue was gut wrenching and like Clyde, I shed a tear. Very sad.

 

- Was shocked to read in the closing that Cardinal Law was promoted/elevated (not sure what the right word is) to a position in Rome following his resignation. I realize the film may not tell the whole story, but just seemed like a pretty awful thing to do for someone who empowered abusers to continue to abuse.

[Getslow]

Law is the epitome of a man who was a wonderful priest and a poor bishop. As a young priest in Mississippi in the early 1960s, he was an associate of Charles and Medgar Evers and his editorials on civil rights in the local papers were rewarded with death threats.

 

He was completely unprepared to deal with what was to come after moving from Cape Giardeau to Boston.

 

I've rolled these situations over in my head a thousand times and I can't understand it. How did perfectly decent, perfectly reasonable men manage to overlook or ignore what was going on right in front of them? If they didn't overlook it, what caused them to keep putting these guys in charge of parishes? Even knowing what I do about how our own legal system is set up to fail these victims, I still can't wrap my head around it.

[Bert]

Can't comment on seeing it as a Catholic; however, a few thoughts:

 

- Really enjoyed the movie.

 

- The list of places where this was an issue was gut wrenching and like Clyde, I shed a tear. Very sad.

 

- Was shocked to read in the closing that Cardinal Law was promoted/elevated (not sure what the right word is) to a position in Rome following his resignation. I realize the film may not tell the whole story, but just seemed like a pretty awful thing to do for someone who empowered abusers to continue to abuse.

 

Cardinal Law was given a purely administrative job in Rome. He had no real authority beyond ceremonial responsibilities. How did Hollywood portray his reassignment? I am scared to ask honestly.

[Oldbird]

Cardinal Law was given a purely administrative job in Rome. He had no real authority beyond ceremonial responsibilities. How did Hollywood portray his reassignment? I am scared to ask honestly.

 

I don't remember exactly what they said his position was, but it was certainly portrayed as a step up. Clyde might remember the exact wording (this was only covered in the text on the screen just before the closing credits).

[Bert]

I don't remember exactly what they said his position was, but it was certainly portrayed as a step up. Clyde might remember the exact wording (this was only covered in the text on the screen just before the closing credits).

 

My understanding was that the position in the past was given to bishops/cardinals who were not old enough to retire but who mentally no longer capable of managing a large complex diocese. It was viewed as a way to get him out of leadership but could also seen as a cushy job reward by some.

 

It is quite unfortunate about Cardinal Law, as a priest in the 60's in Jackson Mississippi, he was the part time editor of a paper and vehemently spoke out about the evil and sinfulness of segregation and institutionalized racism earning him numerous death threats and I believe one of two actual attempts.

 

His activism led many other Catholic priests to speak much louder against racism and segregation leading many southern Catholics to rethink their generations old views of African Americans. Unfortunately, Cardinal Law is an example of an accomplished activist who was not able to become an effective leader and manager.

[Bert]

Law is the epitome of a man who was a wonderful priest and a poor bishop. As a young priest in Mississippi in the early 1960s, he was an associate of Charles and Medgar Evers and his editorials on civil rights in the local papers were rewarded with death threats.

 

He was completely unprepared to deal with what was to come after moving from Cape Giardeau to Boston.

 

I've rolled these situations over in my head a thousand times and I can't understand it. How did perfectly decent, perfectly reasonable men manage to overlook or ignore what was going on right in front of them? If they didn't overlook it, what caused them to keep putting these guys in charge of parishes? Even knowing what I do about how our own legal system is set up to fail these victims, I still can't wrap my head around it.

 

Dang it Getslow, you barely beat me.

[Clyde]

Cardinal Law was given a purely administrative job in Rome. He had no real authority beyond ceremonial responsibilities. How did Hollywood portray his reassignment? I am scared to ask honestly.

 

It was simply mentioned that he had taken a new position in Rome.

 

His past work in MS was mentioned in the movie.

[Bert]

It was simply mentioned that he had taken a new position in Rome.

 

I see. I can see how getting a position in Rome could be seen as a promotion but it was really the pope (John Paul II or Benedict XVI) putting him in a position where he could be isolated and watched personally by the pope and his staff.

[Clyde]

I see. I can see how getting a position in Rome could be seen as a promotion but it was really the pope (John Paul II or Benedict XVI) putting him in a position where he could be isolated and watched personally by the pope and his staff.

 

I think people are simply upset that he's still there at all after his involvement in the cover-up.

[ggclfan]

I need to see the movie. I am not Catholic but my wife is and her parents are devout Catholics. I will never forget about 10 years ago while vacationing in Alaska, reading in the Anchorage newspaper a LONG article about how upset people in Alaska were about the Catholic church. Evidently the Church was sending a lot of "bad" priests to Alaska to basically get rid of them. Some were then caught abusing kids in Alaska. Will never forget reading that article. I cannot imagine how mad I would be if my child was abused by a priest that had been caught before but shipped out to do it again somewhere else...

[Oldbird]

It was simply mentioned that he had taken a new position in Rome.

 

His past work in MS was mentioned in the movie.

 

I don't remember the wording, but I don't believe that it said he simply took a new position in Rome. I remember reading it was either a promotion or to a desired position in the church. Now the producers of the movie could have portrayed it as such to promote outrage and if that was there intent - it worked with at least with me.