Remember the cries of anti-Catholic persecution the film generated?
Plot summary:
In the opening credits we see an older priest carrying a large crucifix through the town on his way to the Bishop's palace, where he lunges it through the Bishop's window, into his study.
Father Greg Pilkington, newly assigned to St. Mary's parish in inner-city Liverpool, is startled to discover Father Matthew Thomas is engaged in a sexual relationship with rectory housekeeper Maria Kerrigan. Moreover, Father Thomas is a left-wing radical and an outspoken proponent of Liberation Theology, leading him to constant clashes and bickering with the Bishop—who nevertheless appreciates his abilities.
While the young protagonist's personal traditional conservatism and religious beliefs are offended by the older priest's blatant disregard for his vow of celibacy, he struggles with his own homosexual urges, especially after he meets Graham at a local gay hangout and the two embark on a physical relationship. - More here.
At the time Catholics were warned to stay away from the film. Cardinal O’Connor called the film “as viciously anti-Catholic as anything that has ever rotted on the silver screen.” That was 1996. Needless to say, Bill Donohue launched a boycott of Disney, the parent company of Miramax, which produced the film.
I saw the film much later, and had to wonder what all the fuss had been about - aside from the fact the American opening date was scheduled for Good Friday - it seemed to me to be telling a story, and not necessarily advocating against Catholic teaching. Even if the film was intended to be anti-Catholic, these days we pretty much know the scenarios documented in the film were reality based. In that sense, the film was prophetic.
After reading about Cardinal O'Brien, I was very much in the mood to smash a crucifix through his window too. I think I've settled down somewhat now. In the end, the Cardinal remained faithful to his duty in defending Church teaching as regards marriage and sexuality, his personal failures not withstanding.
Although one point I'd like to make is to tell fellow Catholics not to always try to shut people up who reveal things you don't want to hear. (I'm talking about viewing every revelation as an attack upon the Church or the priesthood. Some people see devils around every corner, others see persecution and Masons and Communists behind every story.
"We're leading a nationwide charge
against Disney, making use of every legal
means available
-- from boycotts to stockholder revolts
-- all designed to send
a clear and unmistakable
message to Michael Eisner, chairman of Disney."
1995 or 1996 Newspaper ad.
A small correction here.
ReplyDeleteI'm not disparaging Cardinal O'Brien - the sentiment about smashing a crucifix through his window was a knee jerk reaction to the media exposure. Sorry I didn't express that more clearly.
A friend receives my post via email, and questioned my reference to the Cardinal, and the following sentence which was meant to be an admonition to fellow Catholics. In the original post I used the word 'sanctimonious' - I changed it in the final draft to 'fellow Catholics'. This is how I explained it to my friend:
"Thank you X, I actually removed the word sanctimonious - but believe me it wasn't directed at the Cardinal. Sorry it read that way. My admonishment was directed at some of the Catholic Defense people who initially jumped to the conclusion that the film was a strike against the Catholic Church, when in reality, it was a sad revelation of the decadence within the Church.
I certainly accept that the Cardinal is probably deeply penitent, and the fact he stood in defense of Catholic teaching opposing gay marriage and all of that is laudable, despite past sins. It is his duty and he did it well.
Sorry if my post came off like that. I'll have to add a note of clarity.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Terry