On March 17, 1995, almost exactly 10 years before his passing, Pope John Paul II

addressed a plenary assembly of the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications, which that year observed another anniversary of particular importance to its own mission and to the Holy Father’s heart: the centenary of the motion picture.

“Since the first public audience in Paris viewed the moving pictures prepared by the Lumière brothers in December 1895,” the Holy Father said, “the film industry has become a universal medium exercising a profound influence on the development of people’s attitudes and choices, and possessing a remarkable ability to influence public opinion and culture across all social and political frontiers.”

The Pope’s remarks were both forward-looking, speaking to the potential of cinema to become “a more and more positive factor in the development of individuals and a stimulus for the conscience of society as a whole,” and also historically minded, speaking positively of the praiseworthy contributions of “many worthwhile productions during the first hundred years of [the cinema’s] existence.”

Later that year, the pontifical commission provided an important reference point to Catholics interested in assessing the cinema’s “many worthwhile productions during the first hundred years of its existence”: a list of 45 films that has come to be known as the Vatican film list.

Though often characterized as “the Vatican’s top films,” the list is meant neither as a set of definitive or magisterial “top 15” lists nor to establish these particular films as definitely more worthwhile than any film that was not included. Titled simply “Some Important Films,” the list is a cross-section of outstanding films, chosen by a committee of 12 international movie scholars appointed by the head of the pontifical commission, Archbishop John Foley.

Archbishop Foley has said that the list is not intended to canonize these particular films; and, in releasing the list, the commission acknowledged, “Not all that deserve mention are included.”

The list is made up of three categories, Religion, Values and Art, with 15 films in each of the three categories. Some are well-known favorites: It’s a Wonderful Life; The Wizard of Oz. Others have extraordinary moral or spiritual significance: A Man for All Seasons; Schindler’s List. Still others are challenging “art films” that demand literate critical engagement: Andrei Rublev; La Strada. The list includes comedy (The Lavender Hill Mob), horror (Nosferatu), science fiction (2001: A Space Odyssey; Metropolis), a number of war movies, even a Western (Stagecoach).

This openness to cinema in all its forms reflects the view articulated in the Holy Father’s address to the pontifical commission. “The Church’s overall judgment of this art form, as of all genuine art, is positive and hopeful,” John Paul declared. At the same time, the Pope sounded a note of caution: “Unfortunately, though, some cinema productions merit criticism and disapproval, even severe criticism and disapproval. This is the case when films distort the truth, oppress genuine freedom, or show scenes of sex and violence offensive to human dignity.”

This moral caution may also be discerned in the choices reflected by the Vatican film list. For example, silent cinema pioneer D. W. Griffith, honored on the list for his ambitious epic Intolerance, may be better known for his landmark, deeply controversial The Birth of a Nation, a Civil War epic marred by much racist imagery.

Though undeniably an “important film,” Birth of a Nation also “merits criticism and disapproval,” to use the Pope’s words, for “distorting the truth” and even “oppressing genuine freedom.” Such considerations may well have played a role in the decision to honor Intolerance rather than Birth of a Nation on the list.

Though the list honors films that show restraint in the depiction of violence and sexuality, it doesn’t confine itself to films that totally avoid such content — any more than the Church’s patronage of other art forms has historically eschewed depictions of violence and nudity. Nudity, sexual content, obscene and profane language, and explicit violence can all be found in films on the list.

Yet all demonstrate a level of restraint that distinguishes them from morally unworthy productions. In acknowledging films that deal with potentially disturbing content, the list again reflects the thought of John Paul II, who wrote, in his Letter to Artists: “Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul or the most unsettling aspects of evil, artists give voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption.”

The list is not infallible, or even authoritative. Catholics may reasonably take issue with the inclusion of certain titles. I have my own quarrels with the list, which in my opinion includes both the best movie ever made about St. Francis of Assisi, Rossellini’s The Flowers of St. Francis, and also the worst, Liliana Cavani’s Francesco.

There are also absent titles I would gladly add, preeminently Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest. Faustina, too, would surely have merited consideration, if only it had come out a few years earlier than the 1995 list rather than in the same year. Perhaps it could be included in a follow-up list 90 years from now.

What other films from the last 10 years might warrant inclusion in such a follow-up list?

Many films celebrated today, such as Million Dollar Baby and Sideways, seem unlikely to generate much interest decades from now. The Passion of the Christ, on the other hand, seems likely to have a long-term impact that over time would make it an increasingly obvious candidate.

Archbishop Foley has defended The Passion against its critics, arguing that “if they’re critical of the film, they would be critical of the Gospel.”

John Paul II, who may or may not have said “It is as it was,” would quite possibly agree.

Steven D. Greydanus is editor

and chief critic of Decentfilms.com.

For the full Vatican film list and reviews of all 45 films, visit  decentfilms.com/commentary/vaticanfilmlist on the Internet .