When Peter Mullan’s The Magdalene Sisters won the Venice Film Festival’s top award in 2002, L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper, published a scathing piece calling it “an angry and rancorous provocation,” among other things.
In 2003 the U.S. bishops’ film review office called The Magdalene Sisters, which depicts abusive conditions in religious Irish institutions for “fallen women,” a “coarse fact-based but manipulative melodrama.” I had just begun at the National Catholic Register that year, and I wrote a cautious but severe review (with a follow-up piece a few years later) over which I still get occasional angry emails. Similar takes appeared in other Catholic publications.
Spotlight, which won Best Picture at the 88th Academy Awards on Sunday, has been received very differently by Catholics. The film depicts the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative work of the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team in 2001 and 2002 on mishandling of clerical sexual abuse of minors by the Boston Archdiocese under Cardinal Bernard Law.
It began at the 2015 Venice Film Festival, where Spotlight screened out of competition. The festival’s SIGNIS jury (SIGNIS is the World Catholic Association for Communication) issued a statement calling Spotlight a “captivating film” that “calls the Catholic Church to be the moral leader it claims to be.”
In November, the U.S. bishops’ film review office (now under the auspices of Catholic News Service) wrote a guarded but positive review, calling it a “generally accurate chronicle” offering “valuable insight into one of the darkest chapters in ecclesiastical history.”
I watched Spotlight twice in November and was deeply impressed; I included it in my top 10 films of 2015, as did Catholic News Service and a number of my friends and peers in the world of cinephiles of faith.
The day after the Academy Awards, L’Osservatore Romano made it quasi-official, praising Spotlight’s “compelling plot” and insisting that it is “not anti-Catholic,” but “manages to voice the shock and profound pain of the faithful confronting the discovering of these horrendous realities.”
Positive response hasn’t just come from the Catholic press. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of the Boston Archdiocese, where Spotlight is set, watched the film in December and found it to be “very powerful and important,” according to an archdiocesan spokesman. Cardinal O’Malley is the head of a tribunal created by Pope Francis in 2015 to prosecute bishops charged with not enforcing the Church’s “zero-tolerance” policy for abuse by clergy.
Word on Fire founder Bishop Robert Barron of Los Angeles, who often comments on movies in his popular YouTube videos, offered muted praise, calling the film “very sober, very understated” and adding, “It’s not a bad movie, and it’s worth looking at that time again.”
Malta’s Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, told the Italian daily La Repubblica that “All bishops and cardinals must see this film, because they must understand that it is reporting [abuse] that will save the Church, not ‘omertà.’” (Omertà is a term from Mafia culture meaning a code of silence and non-cooperation.)
Other positive responses have come from a wide range of sources including Catholic News Agency critic Carl Kozlowski, Vatican Radio culture commentator Luca Pellegrini, Boston Pilot columnist Dwight Duncan (a canon lawyer and civil lawyer in the Boston area), and popular author and blogger Dr. Taylor Marshall.
Why has Catholic response to Spotlight been so positive?
One key reason is the film’s shrewd choice of point of view. Spotlight tells the story entirely from the perspective of the Globe journalists, focusing on the investigation and the patterns of secrecy and cover-up; it also makes the pain of the victims heartbreakingly real through interviews with now-adult victims — but it does so without putting abuse onscreen.
Confronting the victims’ pain is crucial to the film’s power. “Honestly, most Catholics have never [knowingly] looked a victim of clerical abuse in the eye,” Kathryn Jean Lopez of NationalReview.com wrote to me via email. Lopez, who told me she had “no idea” the film would affect her so powerfully, began her recent piece with the words “Thank God for the Boston Globe. Thank God for Spotlight.”
There’s also the persuasive sense of authenticity. “What surprised me as a journalist, more than a Catholic, was all the things they got right,” Deacon Greg Kandra, a popular news blogger and multimedia professional who worked for decades at CBS News, told me. The filmmakers “capture the mood, temperament and spirit of working in a newsroom, and celebrated the old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism that is rapidly going out of style — the very kind of reporting that uncovered the scandal…and that fewer news organizations are investing in.”
Another factor is lack of triumphalism. Spotlight is an angry movie, but also a sad one, blaming Church leaders but also mourning the loss of faith among victims and others. At least two clerics are noted as men of conscience who did what they could, and the film acknowledges failures beyond the Church as well, even at the Globe itself.
Catholic response to Spotlight hasn’t been unmixed. Former SIGNIS president Father Peter Malone, a Sacred Heart Missionary and a veteran film critic from Australia, wrote to me that while he found the film generally well made, he was “irked” by “the Americanism — it gave the impression that the Spotlight team had unearthed the issue of abuse before anyone else did. [In Australia we] were dealing with abuse officially from 1996 and amongst dioceses and orders before that…I also thought the screenplay did not do enough justice to police work.”
In my own review I highlighted some caveats, among them the film’s perpetuation of unscientific statistics about rates of abuse among Catholic clergy, which have not been found to be higher than in other fields such as public education. Nor does the film note that rates of abuse by Catholic clergy peaked in the 1970s, with sharp declines since then.
A negative piece in CrisisMagazine.com by Anne Hendershott of Franciscan University of Steubenville highlighted alleged distortions, including portrayals of a number of individuals who say they were smeared and neglect of the Boston Globe’s history of antagonism against the archdiocese.
One of Hendershott’s sources, David Pierre, has written extensively about anti-Catholic bias at the Globe at his website TheMediaReport.com and in a pair of self-published books.
There is some truth to these charges, according to journalist and author Phil Lawler, a Boston area native whose 2010 book The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture is must reading on the origins and fallout of the abuse crisis in Boston. (Lawler finds Pierre’s work helpful with qualifications, noting, “In his zeal to protect the Church from unjust criticism he sometimes defends the indefensible.”)
But Lawler is among Spotlight’s Catholic advocates, writing in FirstThings.com that the film “successfully conveys the essence of the story.”
“I do think it’s important to keep in mind that the scenes are constructed, and the plot line generally simplified, for dramatic effect,” Lawler told me. “I don’t think Spotlight distorted the facts seriously; I do think the filmmakers used an approach that supported their own ‘take’ on the scandal. That will always be the case; caveat emptor. Overall, the film was a reasonably fair recreation of how the cover-up was defeated.”
One point most commentators noted was that Spotlight doesn’t acknowledge the substantial reform efforts undertaken since 2002 to develop and implement new policies and standards to protect minors. The film ends with a long list of locations where abuse cases have occurred with which the film ends, which, without context, could suggest to some that nothing has been done. Comments from some filmmakers, including producer Michael Sugar’s appeal to Pope Francis in his Academy Award acceptance speech, could also perpetuate this notion.
The USCCB claims that the Church “has done more to protect children than almost any other organization in the United States,” citing prevention training, background checks, zero tolerance and other initiatives. Rates of new credible accusations since 2002 are down dramatically. Even the latest shock waves from the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown in Pennsylvania involve cases so old that most of the priests are dead.
“The U.S. hierarchy has done a good job of providing for disciplinary action against abusive priests,” Lawler said. Still, he added, “their implementation depends on the commitment of the bishops, and since the bishops’ credibility has been severely damaged, there’s no assurance that the policies are actually being followed. We’re still waiting for bishops to be held accountable.”
Msgr. Jim Lisante, host of the Sirius Satellite Radio Catholic Channel show “Personally Speaking,” made a similar point.
“Many of the steps which have been taken by the Church” are “good and helpful,” he acknowledged. “But so much of the institutional sins of the scandal would not have happened had more bishops had the backbone of someone like Bishop John D’Arcy, the truth-telling bishop from Boston” briefly but positively mentioned in Spotlight.
“Somewhere in the process of selecting bishops,” Msgr. Lisante went on, “I believe the Holy See needs to ask: Can this man we are selecting tell us even the unpopular truth? Can he hold a mirror to the institution of the Church and challenge us to see the truth even if it hurts? Are those bishops selected only obedient corporate leaders, or men of real conscience?”
More bluntly, he concluded, “how do you say you stand with a Christ who says: ‘Woe to those who hurt the little ones,’ and still protect the priests who abused children?”
Steven D. Greydanus is the Register’s film critic and creator of Decent Films.
He is studying for the permanent diaconate for the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey.
Follow him on Twitter.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Sad but true what has happened in the Church continues to happen. No matter how or what Hollywood says, I tend to believe that many Catholics find themselves angry about what has happened and they do not need Hollywood or a movie to confirm what is known and what has happened or how they feel… One priest abusing kids is one to many. The Church needs to do more than it is doing and so does Rome, from top to bottom a good cleaning of house is needed. But then again so do our whole society and country. Exposing what has happened will hopefully lead to everyone doing something about it.
Mr. Bill Donahue: first of all the abuse by Roman Catholic Priest has not ended and the Church is not doing very much about it. Why do I say this because I have been personally involved with the cases of some of the Priests and the Church’s process is still slow and is still not dealing well with the issue. There has also been allegations concerning the nuns, monks, ministers in the Church which are also not being dealt with. The sad fact is that unless you work in the Church and deal with the problem, most Catholics and people are still not aware that the problem continues and still goes on. You make it sound like the issue has been handled and is over with. I assure you that you are wrong and that “Spotlight” actually is an incomplete picture of what has happened and what is still happening. Hollywood also in reality treated the issue quite low key. Yes other faith and religions share similar problems but this movie was about the Catholic Church, that by the way is in need of a great amount of prayers. Even the issue of how this has affected parishes, other good priests, ministries were not addressed in the movie, and these are other grave issues that have not been dealt with. I am aware of women who have been abused and to this day have not had the courage to bring charges against the priests or nuns etc. Whether it be out of fear or the belief that only God can judge, or that is is wrong to accuse a priest, nun etc. the fact is that serious abuse issues are still happening as you wrote your article. A person who knows some of these priests, nuns, etc, will have a totally different view that the one you expressed in your article. Yes Hollywood has a serious problem but in this case the truth is the truth, whether it happened long ago or today. One priest, or nun etc is to many. Homosexuality is not the root cause of the problem neither is celibacy. Sin exist and immorality exist, and the Church and its members sin.
‘
Steven,
I appreciate your feedback and true enough the pieces I have read from Catholic League hit on the larger themes apart from the film’s quality and basic facts on screen. My point was to affirm the need to provide the necessary context of what Spotlight’s effects will be and what is the intent behind those who pushed for the film to be Best Picture. The film can work as a display of investigative journalism which just so happens to be covering sexual abuse cases where Catholic priests are the guilty parties. But can we not see that the hierarchical Church is public enemy #1 for many in the entertainment industry who are heavily biased on major social issues as abortion rights and sexual politics as in acceptance of gay sex and marriage, gender theory, top it off with reproductive technologies, euthanasia etc… Clearly there is a desire on the part of many in Hollywood and liberal Catholic circles to reduce the authority lines of the Catholic Hierarchy. So where is the suspicion that should come when a film like this comes out and the push is on to get big publicity and the biggest awards from within the industry and in the mainstream media? When the film doesn’t touch on whether the Catholic prelates were getting advice from the mental health field calling for reintegration for priests, is that factual or not? And what about the backdrop of having a large contingent of priests with deep seated homosexual desires who came into the priesthood perhaps as a most excellent cover, and with so many victims being teen boys which isn’t even technical pedophiles territory, isn’t this a relevant angle to explore if truth telling is the goal? And how about that lack of providing information about how much the Church has done in response to the scandal, is it possible that those responsible for the film want to leave the impression that the Church is still blissfully allowing priests to molest children at will? Why would th director call out Pope Francis at the Award Show if not to give the masses that impression? And what to make of all the stats showing that overall the Church and her priests are not statistically more likely to molest than other groups of religious or men in general? True or not.? I’m very concerned that Catholics are allowing mistaken general impressions of the Church to go out essentiallay unchallenged, like we should embrace a punch to the face just because? I think we can walk and chew gum here, we can hold our own accountable without throwing the hierarchical Church under the bus to show Hollywood how cool and progressive we are. We can defend what can be defended when the obvious Church haters start piling on, and we can bring up the hypocrisy of how quick the same forces are to look away when non Catholics are the guilty parties like within Hollywood itself, the situation with the NYC Hasidic Jewish communities and public schools. So the film Spotlight seems to have succeeded in hoodwinking many Catholics into thinking this is all just a friendly exercise in putting together a great film about investigative journalism and the Big Bad Church. Meanwhile for many this is the only exposure to the Church they get and it has formed a lasting impression with little or no pushback or larger context provided by most of the Catholic media such as this piece, the review by Catholic Life Teen and many other commentators who seized on this thing as a great opportunity for a huge Mea Culpa no matter how damaging the effects of the larger destructive intent that is all around the film and its massive promotion in mainstream circles.
Defender:
You haven’t read those five articles very carefully! Either that, or you’re unfamiliar with the genre of Donohue-style debunking I’m talking about, or both.
Not once in any of the Spotlight articles that I’ve seen (and I read the piece you link to carefully weeks ago) does Donohue engage in the kind of point-by-point rebuttal of particular elements in the film, as he does in the pieces on The Magdalene Sisters and Philomena. He doesn’t actually talk about the specifics of the content of the film at all, as he does with the other films. He never says the film is anti-Catholic, as he does with the others.
Instead, as I said, he indicts, to quote the piece in question, “commentary by those associated with ‘Spotlight,’ as well as movie reviewers and pundits, etc.” He never specifically links the five “myths” to any actual content in the film. He says the film will perpetuate those myths, but without specifically citing any content this can only refer to how the film will be received and interpreted by a culture infected with anti-Catholicism.
I linked in my previous comments to Google searches for previous Catholic League debunking of the other films I mentioned, as well as to a Google search for Spotlight. If you aren’t familiar with the kind of point-by-point indictments of specific distortions in the other films I’m talking about, check out the links. Then look at the Spotlight coverage again. The difference is obvious.
Actually Stephen, if you read Bill Donahue’s article: http://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SHINING-THE-LIGHT-ON-SPOTLIGHT.pdf he do,es exactly what you say he doesn’t do. He goes after what he calls ‘myths’ presented in the film. He attempts to debunk the film. He has gone after it in at least 5 articles. Sadly, while saying that he is not the church’s “water boy”, he has repeatedly argued that the abuse scandal is solely a ‘homosexual issue’ and not a pedophilia scandal in attempts to spin things. His arguments diminutize the crimes committed and brush them off as a problem of being homosexual, rather than admit another human being was violated both physically but emotionally and whether is was heterosexual or homosexual, should never be tolerated.
Said to say that the Catholic Church believes they are above the law. The church I went to knowingly knew one of the priests was a pedophile. This church and the Diocese was sued and the victims got a handsome settlement. However, the Diocese and the church never acknowledged their error and never apologized. They thought they did nothing wrong. They thought they were above the law. The Catholic Church believes in “Do as I say and not as I do.” I will never believe in conventional religion again.
Tim S:
I’m glad you brought up the Catholic League, Tim S. It gives me a chance to make a point I would have liked to make in the article, but had to omit for reasons of length (it’s already a very long article). The point is this:
The Catholic League has launched launched major offensives against The Magdalene Sisters, against Philomena, and against other negative cinematic depictions of Catholicism over the years.
When it came to Spotlight, on the other hand, the Catholic League has basically confined itself to criticizing press coverage of the film, commenting on public statements of filmmakers, etc.
Bill Donohue — rightly in my view — has not run any articles with names like “Debunking Spotlight,” “Spotlight Smears Catholicism,” “Lies of Spotlight,” etc., as he has with other negative cinematic depictions of Catholicism.
In fact, in one of his fairly oblique pieces on the film, Donohue quoted a 2002 interview he gave to The New York Times in which he said “I am not the church’s water boy. I am not here to defend the indefensible.”
This silence from the Catholic League on Spotlight‘s handling of history is as telling as any of the positive citations above. The fact that Donohue found his 2002 remark about not being the Church’s “water boy” and not “defending the indefensible” to be relevant to the reception of Spotlight today is even more notable.
Clearly Donohue implicitly (and almost explicitly) recognizes that Spotlight is different from the anti-Catholic films he loves to rip into. If there were any real whiff of anti-Catholicism about Spotlight, you can be sure that the Catholic League would be all over it like angry on a wet cat.
When even the Catholic League basically admits a movie isn’t anti-Catholic, it’s time for protesters to pack up their signs and go home.
The reluctance of many Americans to believe the accusations was rooted in the background of all manner of wild stories being constantly passed on in the surrounding culture for generations. Catholic identity was very much forged in defiance of all the Anglo-Saxon Protestant slander—memorably featured in the character of Bill Cutting in “Gangs of New York” but nowhere else that I can think of in American pop culture. I wonder if any filmmaker would be willing to approach the subject of the treatment and cileness to which Catholic immigrants were subjected in the 1830s-1850s, or the 1920s-1930s.
I’m distressed over the many positive film reviews from more or less faithful Catholic reviewers. There seems to be acknowledgment of the following: The Hollywood reality of Catholic bashing and the politics of the Academy to reward films that attack the Church, promote liberal social issue causes and revisionist histories. Also, there is no discussing of the fact that the advice given to the prelates during the time period coming from the mental health professionals was that with treatment these priests could return in new circumstances and be able to be safely reintegrated- is this not true? Additionally, the point of view of Bill Donohue is totally disregarded and he has put together a lot of research that would indicate the problem centered on a past tendency to ignore the threats of deep seated homosexual tendencies in the clergy, which is the reason Pope Benedict issued directives to deny such men from seminaries. And lastly, the idea that there was no animus on the part of the Boston Globe and mainstream media seems highly unlikely, that these fallen away liberal Catholic would fairly cover the scandals is not serious given how little attention sex abuse cases are covered when they happen at public schools, Hasidic Jewish communities, Hollywood, and the stats that priests on average are less likely to be sexual abusers than the general male population or other denominations if insurance rates are any indication. Again why is Catholic League research overlooked in this review of Catholic opinion?
Yes Spotlight sound like an angry movie, but people are angry. I have dealt with the Church, Priests, Bishops that are involved with the abuse situation and I can tell you that there are many angry, hurt Catholics suffering from more than anger. The Movie is very truthful and I can also say from first hand experience that the Church is still not dealing with some of the Priests and are continuing to do what they have done before, sweep the continual abuse under the rug. Having first hand experience in the matter and dealing with people who have come forward with abuse from even the Nuns and the Orders are hiding the facts that the roots go deep and the anger, disillusionment, lack of trust, confusion goes very deep and is still going on. Yes the Church does a great amount of good and there is another side to the story, but people and society focus on the bad and evil that is going on. Situations of this nature tend to cloud over any goodness that is being done. This is normal human nature. Trust is easily destroyed and difficult rebuilt; sadly as long as the situation goes on and more and more abuse is being uncovered, the more difficult it is for Catholics and people in general to regain the lost trust. And anger is the natural reaction to such an evil, especially done by person dedicated to the service O God. The situation is worst than even how the Movie
expressed it. Anyone who questions the Movie needs to know that in reality the Movie did not expose the deep and breadth of the whole situation. IT IS MUCH WORST; the movie actually softened up the situation and is right on.
The reforms made since 2002 are not emphasized enough. Catholics are constantly told that the church has done nothing, and the assumption remains that pedophile priests are on the prowl everywhere for victims. Practicing Catholics who witness the selfless service of their parish priests can only mourn that unfair characterization. Yes, the reform has been commendable, but it will take decades before this awful scandal stops tarring our good priests and our church.
All films, without exception, that attempt to tell a story about something that actually happened, are hyped to a certain extent to get the point across. Unfortunately, on most occasions, the point of emphasis often misses the mark even if the overall theme is accurate. It is simply the way it is and most honest film makers will acknowledge that. Still, even flawed in some areas, these films can serve a good purpose. It would appear “Spotlight” meets that test whereas “The Deputy” would not.
eddie too:
Spotlight is fact-based fiction. As I noted in the article, pretty much the whole film is told from the perspective of the journalists, so it doesn’t include much that couldn’t be fact-checked.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t take liberties — they did — or that all of their liberties were fair or reasonable, but it’s not like the movie shows the behind-the-scenes conspiring of Cardinal Law and his subordinates, etc.
You might want to read my review.
was spotlight a documentary? I thought it was an original screenplay and was fictional.
maybe what the screenwriter imagined was close enough to what actually happened?
how do we know that? does not only cardinal egan, his assistants and the abusive priests know what actually occurred?
I am asking these questions because I do not know the answers. are they answered elsewhere and I missed it?
fwk:
Mr. Pierre’s books are mentioned in the article and his website linked. The article also offers the opinions of others who are quite familiar with the facts in Boston and also, in at least one case, with Mr. Pierre’s work.
It is quite right to fact-check fact-based films; it is also right to allow them room for dramatic license.
It is possible that some of Spotlight‘s liberties are unjust, for instance, if particular individuals were badly misrepresented. Whether the film’s overall portrayal of the broad shape of the facts is generally truthful is another question.
David F Pierre debunks claims of this movie in his book, Sins of the Press. Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes in the New York Times question facts presented in many recent movies, including Spotlight.
So…..When choosing leaders for the Dioceses, what are the questions asked of the qualified candidates? Is it “Can you operate a nonprofit charitable organization offering religious services to the laity?” or is it “Can you be the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to bring the souls in your Diocese to sainthood?” The former question presumes clericalism in all of its various forms. The latter presumes the most fearsome task any human can undertake. I, too, would like to see some accountability from the bishops, but let us not wait until such accountability before taking on the latter task. If we laity do not take up the latter path, then the bishops are stuck with servicing us on the former path. JPII smiled and said “Do not be afraid!” Little did I know at the time of the things of which we needed to be afraid. It was not the task of the moviemakers to suggest a path forward for us. It is up to us to provide that path forward.
I think an important distinction between The Magdalene Sisters and Spotlight is that the latter film is documenting events that were unfortunately all to common in most if not all diocese in the United States. In contrast, many who stayed in the Magdalene houses had very different experiences than the one portrayed in the film suggesting that the latter experience was not the rule there. No doubt about it, the leaders of the Church have a lot to answer for, even if a single incident of any sort of abuse is allowed to happen on their watch, but what we need is truth, not demonization.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.