Robert Harris writes FICTION, but he is well known to be an excellent researcher, therefore I would expect this story have a somewhat more honest basis than what we have ever seen in the culture of the Vatican itself. What we all know about cardinals and priests is that what they actually DO is that they cover for each other's criminality.
I thought Cardinal Lawrence's railing against certainty and finding merit in doubt to be the movie's most sublime moment. To me, the movie likens Lawrence to the Apostles, who hid following the crucifixion and death of Jesus. In an ultimate test of faith, he choses to abide within the Church as best he can, he choses faithful service in light of the foibles of his peers, and he quietly reasons God, ultimately finding solace and belief in God, despite every thought we humans might use to reject God. The last five minutes of the film, I could have easily missed. It seems the movie business feels it is obligatory to shock the audience.
The movie took that doubt scene right from the book. I enjoyed this movie. People have to remember this is a movie. It’s fiction. The ending creates a question for people to ponder. A what if. It’s oddly similar to the athletes competing in the Olympics in boxing this summer. The ending also reflects the conversation on whether the church is meant to be stagnant and not responding to the times or to address the problems as they are present. I thought it was a good thought experiment. The film is beautifully shot and acted. We have to remember it’s a movie!!!
@@WJHDetroit There definitely needs to be a conversation about the current spiritual warfare that is going on in the world - The church will always go back to the teachings that are well established in order to address the issues we have today... We ALREADY have many writings that discuss human sexuality and chastity, like The Theology of the Body, Humanae Vitae, the Catechism, and more. Plus there are many books written by Catholics who are faithful to the church and have valuable conversations about all the issues we face in our world. I wouldn't say the church is stagnant at all but is trying to address all the issues regarding sexuality and the roles of men and women, marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc. The reason I wouldn't watch this film is to purposefully deprive it of any monetary gain from my watching it as well as not entertaining that which spews false and incorrect teachings that are contrary to what the Catholic church actually teaches.
@@LawnBunny777 True indeed, but then the earlier doubting St. Thomas will state clearly “My Lord and My God!”. Such a strong and simple statement of Faith hardly seen in the whole Gospel.
What these reviewers seem to have missed about (spoiler alert--though these guys go into this in detail) Cardinal Benitez's intersexuality is that he was unaware of it until he had an operation for something entirely unrelated; he was already an ordained priest, indeed an ordained cardinal, and the Pope himself was aware of this to the extent that the Pope himself was funding Benitez's trip to a Swiss clinic to remove the internal female organs, but Benitez ultimately declined because he realized it was how God made him, so how could that be bad. His resignation would not have been accepted.
@@KR-ll4dj This is an important misconception to clear up, so forgive me jumping in here. Even if Benitez went through the ordination ceremony, the ordination would be invalid because he’s not a biological man. There’s no loophole where Benitez would be grandfathered in. It wouldn’t even be a question of him resigning, he would never have been a priest. All of the sacraments he administered previously would also be invalid, and they would have to re-administered by a valid priest. And as Tom pointed out by referencing Abigail Favale and Fr. Tad (their articles provided in description) it is not bad to be intersex. Don’t mean to pick on you, I appreciate your comment! God bless. -Michael
@@CatholicFilmClub Interesting take, but it begs the question of who is or isn't a "man" (for ordination purposes). Is a male with polydactylism not a man? Or with cancer? What about only one descended testicle? Obviously I'm not a Catholic, so this sort of retroactive invalidation is alien to me, especially with a genetic condition that a few centuries back would never be known. Is there some sort of blemish test to enter the priesthood? Not meaning to pick on you either--I am genuinely curious about this.
@@KR-ll4dj The 1983 Code of Canon Law is available online. Sections 1009-1054 address the requirements and impediments to ordination. You’ll see there are many reasons a bioligical man would not be fit for priesthood. As far as how the Church would know someone like Benitez was a man, I would presume church officials would use the best available means to determine that. A genetic test would reveal conclusively whether Benitez’s chromosomes were XX, XY, or XXY. If the chromosome were XY then he would be a man. If they were XX then the sacrament of Holy Orders Benitez received and all the sacraments she administered would always have been invalid. The only thing retroactive would be the revelation of her condition years after it was discovered. Now the wrinkle here is that the Church only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and would approach XXY individuals by detemining which sex is most dominant. You can read Fr. Tad’s article in the video description for more detail. So I will grant that up to now I’ve assumed that Benitez is dominant female because she has a uterus, hence the historectomy. In real life, this situation would require immense prudence and transparency. But in Conclave the main characters keep their secrets and gamble with the souls of the world.
One thing missed in the discussion is that, from what I've heard from priests talking on this subject, it isn't just that they must be male, they must be fertile, normal functioning men. Just as a man cannot marry if he knows he's infertile, a man cannot be a priest. Now I know, they introduce this element of doubt since he didn't know, but for the sake of this conversation in these comments, a man is not just xy but also functioning. So for example if he loses his testicle in an accident before ordination, then he isn't able to be ordained. I'm not sure that afterwards there's any affect since impotence surely comes with advanced age for most men so it wouldn't invalidate priesthood. But just initially a man must be functioning, just like in marriage. A man is giving his full self, including his sexuality in marriage or priesthood so if it is disordered it is not freely given. I think your assessment that if he is found to be she with chromosomal testing then it would be invalid. Also I think even though xxy, or any combination involving y, is actually a male with defect, he still couldn't become a priest(since the vast majority of these defects result in sterility). I think the whole conceit of the film is a bit disingenuous. There are very few of EVEN the very few intersex people that don't show malignancy in their very bodily presentation due to deficits of hormones etc. For most of these cases the parents and doctors are aware. There are very few that "pass" as a healthy specimen of male or female with intersex features. This is like saying if you live in utopia and you have magic powers and there's a Pegasus and they breathe water and ...and ... its just making up a completely impossible scenario.
@@CatholicFilmClub I agree that the film had an agenda and the end was contrived. However, this discussion about the hermaphrodite gambling with the souls of the world is a stretch. Souls are saved through their own deeds not through the priest. And to the point of “doubt”, clergy do keep silence about their secrets: pedophiles and homosexuals within the clergy.
I will never understand why people think that fictional movies and books need to represent anything accurately. It is a quite good movie - particularly regarding costumes, cinematography and the editing. The script is a classic story of political intrigue which could almost be put in any royal court in the world at any point in history. And it very vaguely and broadly relies on the long history of conclave for its premise - which, yes, did sometimes get VERY political backstabbing and conspiratorial. No honest Catholic should be pretending the Church hasn't had its moments in history where it operated in quite spurious ways. It's just part of the long history of the institution.
@@Robespierre-lI They do when they make a show of representing everything accurately. This movie is obsessed with details and realism, so we’re judging it by the standards it set for itself.
Very interesting discussion. I had just watched the film last night and while I found the cinematography and acting to be top notch. I found the actual meat of the film to be rather dull. It felt like they were trying to be provocative in the storytelling but instead everything was portrayed rather black and white with nothing really new to say. With most of the cast being portrayed very two dimensional aside from Lawrence who at least had a bit more character. I still enjoyed the film for the most part. Not quite in my favorites of the year. But still a visual feast with some great performances.
Thank you, I really appreciate that! On your point of being two dimensional, one of our favorite channels Moviewise made a great essay about how simplistically it was written. Would highly recommend it. And we just published a follow up episode on this film as well.
I appreciate your review and your Catholic perspective. While I won't defend the 'twist' as I'm not sure I was fully sold on it, I felt like the core dilemma of our leads was to try and elevate a Pope they felt would best move the church forward in a way they agreed with (or if not their ideal candidate, not their least favorite) and struggling to align around an ideal or plausible candidate. The movie slowly rolls out the reasons all our primary candidates are unfit for the role, including our 'liberal' candidate which then tempts our conflicted Dean to take on the mantle which itself proved him unworthy. The final dilemma being, that the best candidate was invalidly ordained (I didn't know why this was technically but the movie told me enough to know it was not typical) but the Dean decided to move forward with this choice as he still saw it as the best thing for the church as outside of that one detail, he clearly seemed like the best choice out of the remaining candidates (and they thought so too). Obviously, this is easier to digest if you aren't as knowledgeable about church procedures but the idea of the Catholic church covering up things that would make the church look bad was sadly not a stretch. Your explanation of the downstream impact of an invalid Cardinal would make this all the more likely, at least fictionally. Again, I appreciate your perspective but think you actually convinced me more that the movie might be more realistic than I initially thought.
I loved this film! Great acting, real thriller, beautiful production values. I don't doubt that the Catholic press would be clutching its pearls. But so what? Enjoyable, fine film making worthy of an Oscar nomination, no question.
[SPOILER] I've wrote it before, but perhaps it was buried among the comments. You know, I loved one of the final scenes, in which a gentle wind whispers above the cardinals. It is being shown from many sides. Bad or good, left or right, the cardinals recognize the biblical reference, and move straight to cast their vote.
I agree. I really loved some of those moments of ambiguity. The breeze entered the windows which had been broken by the car bomb (and the shutters were also broken letting in the light) but there was also a reference to the "mighty wind".
@@maxdepasquale2351 Not sure what you mean? The phrase "mighty wind" is associated with the account of Pentecost in the bible. That's what I thought of in the film. Actually in the King James translation the phrase is "a sound as of a rushing mighty wind" so it's a noise, not a breeze.
There may be an issue with translation, or perhaps just a misunderstanding. I was referring to the encounter of Prophet Elijah with the Lord, of course in the Old Testament. Book of Kings, Chapter 19. Elijah first runs into a very strong wind, so strong it could break mountains; but the Lord was not in that roary wind. Then there was a strong earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. Then there was a fire, but the Lord was not there. Then there was a mormour of a "gentle breeze" (we have the expression " "brezza gentile" in the Catholic Bible used in Italy). And there, the Lord spoke to Elijah... Hope I made myself understood :-)
@@maxdepasquale2351 Yes indeed. I didn't recall the Book of Kings passage. There may be other references to wind signifying the presence of God, I don't recall. 🙂
I saw the film. With its mistakes, still an opportunity to talk about what is accurate and what is not with people who might not otherwise be open to Catholic teachings.
While I think the church needs to really come to grips with the fact that intersex and trans people exist, I agree the coda ending was ridiculous. I'm not Catholic, I know little about the religion though much of the history, and the very idea was idiotic. The Catholic Church and especially the Papacy is known for its intolerance and strict segregation of gender roles. I didn't find the ending insulting, as I'm not religious, but I do think it was stupid and undermined the entire story. It took what had been a compelling political thriller and made it trite.
Im Orthodox so Im not saying this because Im trying to defend my position. I don't think there should be a THEE pope. But I am a filmmaker, a writer and now a director. This movie is well made, slick propaganda. The idea of a person who knows they have ovaries accepting the position of a bishop would disqualify them from the position to begin with. The author of the book is a liberal and the director is not religious. These people think they are "fighting the good fight" but in reality they are just tool of the evil one working to erode and lead people astray. The way they portray the traditionalist cardinal in particular, slapping someone the first time we see him and calling for war. Its ridiculous. No priest, bishop, cardinal or any clergy could act out like that let alone in public without being removed shortly. Clergy are kind people or at the very least they must appear kind and wouldn't get away with that kind of behaviour. I'm surprised more people aren' talking about this. If they made a movie like this so biased about any other religion than Christianity it would be met with outrage and possibly even violence. But as Christ said the world hates you because it hated me first.
I may be wrong (I read the novel long time ago) but I seem to remember that in the book by Robert Harris, Cardinal Tedesco never calls for a "Holy War" against Islam. Yes, he points out to the great Battle of Lepanto, 1541, in which the Ottoman expansion into the Mediterranean was stopped; he claims that without it Europe would be Islamic now, and he laments that, while we have plenty of mosques in Italy, including Rome (?), churches in Saudi Arabia have to stay hidden. But he does not want armies invading the Middle East. And by no means he calls the average Islamic person an "animal", as he does in the movie. These, and others - like Bellini yelling "it is a WAR!!" - are... drama moments added to the film to grasp the attention of the auditorium. But Robert Harris was more careful in his writing. However, truth be told, the regrettable final twist of the plot is present in the novel, though not very articulated.
Ralph Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes spells his name in a funny way because he's a toff. Rafe Spall spells his name in a traditional way because his dad had played the part of Rafe the grocer's apprentice in the play The Knight of the Burning Pestle. You're welcome.
I’m a ‘card carrying’ follower of Jesus Christ. So much so that I have read Pope Benedict’s books about Jesus’ life from birth to resurrection. I’m not a Catholic, but I seek out books from scholars like Pope Benedict. Which is why Conclave interest me. I’m still processing the ending with careful & thoughtful discussion with my wife. Our takeaway at the moment is that Hollywood lazily inserted identity politics, and fearfully ignores a movie where the plot is Muslim fundamentalism vs moderates vs liberalism. It is so easy to demonize conservatives and Christians and Catholics. It is an interesting the twist at the end is a very rare condition.
The film was from the perspective of Lawrence, who is a liberal. I don't think it's showing Tedesco in a bad light, just that he's the prominent figure of the other faction.
@@JohnFromAccounting Well... in the film, if I recollect correctly, he seems to advocate a Holy War against Muslims... Something that does NOT happen in the novel by Robert Harris.
I think you are underselling what the author is doing in maligning the Catholic Church. It is mentioned at least once that the Cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting a new Pope. By selecting a Pope whose ordination is invalid, the entire idea of this guidance is dismissed as silliness. Even worse is that the infallibility of the Pope in maintaining rules that the Holy Spirit later ignores insults the idea of an Apostolic Church.
@@davidhogenmiller248 Oh definitely not our intention to undersell that point. We have another video on Conclave coming out soon that goes into more detail on one particular scene.
I took a back step and enjoyed the film as an observer. What I would not do is take it as a true story, nor would I take the Catholic Church as part of God, or Jesus either. The Catholic Church ''is'' a fictional entity, a corporation which only exist by legal documents, proving it's property and gold. I never take the Catholic Church as a living being speaking for God. These men in their expensive costumes and rings are promoted by stages to become 'the elite' to be above others and make decisions for you... no different than communism and politicians. So I really enjoyed this fictional story showing what the Catholic Church really is, where it's own ego will destroy itself by living for centuries in their own world, the Vatican far away from reality.
I grant that the film does lean into its audience demographic's view- ie right vs left ideological views- and favors the left. And in that sense, the film is too catering to modern audiences as opposed to traditional catholic views in terms of a "balanced" view. But understand the makers of this movie appreciate their audience, who will pay to watch this, what Hollywood will give awards to, and as always have produced this as a combination of something "somewhat true" and a documentary. You are dissecting this as if it were an actual documentary! And as one with modern sensibilities/a lapsed catholic, as opposed to you both as a "cradle catholics", I have to ask, in a world that is learning (not just re: catholics) about how all over the world the patriarchy has ruled & continues to impose its rule, this movie challenges the notion that long held dogma continues to matter and why does a certifiably male have to be the Pope (challenging you and all traditional catholics to think outside of accepted dogma)? That is why Cardinal Lawrence/ Ralph Fiennes is ultimately cast as the hero- perhaps inexplicably by your dogmatic perspective- he accepts that it DOESN'T matter that a Pope could be intersex, because it DOESN'T impact & actually broadens the definition of what we would hope from a worldwide religion.
@@j.h.9376because the world of this movie and the world we live in does not have satyrs. Intersex people exist and live life as much as you or I ever have and ever will.
@blakeyi6015 they exist but - 1. you can make a definitive ruling whether male or female since if there is any combo involving y chromosome would be a deformed male, all x's would be deformed female. These people are extremely rare and they usually have a mental disability related to chromosomal abnormalities. 2. I never said they don't exist I said it's as ridiculous as satyrs being a priest, not because they don't exist but because you cannot change WHAT a priest is. A priest has to be sexually functioning and normal. If his function or sexuality is compromised then he is not a candidate. Also having a mental disability is precluding. Priests sacrifice their natural fatherhood to serve others. They cannot be female or intersex or anything else like that. This is a ridiculous argument because you all are asking why a circle can't be a square- as if we were all just liberal enough, modernist enough we could change the fabric of reality. This isn't a manmade job that can go to a woman as well as a man. This is supernatural. This movie has a ridiculous premise.
@@YoujustgotJ1NXED This film is a political thriller that happens to be set at a Vatican conclave. It's actual subject matter is doubt, doubt about one's faith, institution, and self. By this standard it portrays the anguish and turmoil and despair correctly and accurately. That's what this movie is about.
I agree that Cardinal Lawrence's homily was just awful! It is our certainty in Christ that gives us our unity. However, before we talk "liberal" and "conservative", let's consider the letter of St. Paul to the Galatians: Gal. 3:26 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Notice that St. Paul doesn't say there is neither male nor female, as he said about the others. He said "nor is there male AND female" in Christ. Contextually, however, the most important word in the passage is in verse 29...the word "heirs". The Greek word for "heirs" here is "klēronomos", which is the plural nominative masculine. We know that in Paul's day, a woman could not inherit under most circumstances, but not so in the Kingdom that is not of this world. Both the male and female inherit God's Kingdom as if both are male heirs. As far as this broken world knows, we are all clothed in Christ, and we present to them "in persona Christi". I'm not sure the Church has fully come to terms with this truth, though St. Paul knew it right well.
This movie was based off a book. It told the story of the book. Did not have to "research" anything. It was a fictitious drama. Not a documentary. To treat it as such makes it more important than it is. And makes you two seem not connected to reality. May i suggest you review "The Wizard of OZ" next. Can talk about what insight the movie gave to life on a Kassas farm. Makes as much sense as what you are doing here.
I’m enjoying listening to this conversation, but one question I have is what would happen if Cardinal Benitez had not discovered his condition. After all, it was discovered during an emergency appendectomy. Would God not recognize the sacraments performed by him even if no one - even Benitez himself - was aware that he was intersex?
And, to that end, what if it is never discovered by anyone but Benitez is, indeed chosen as Pope? Does that invalidate the idea that the cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit in making this decision? I’m genuinely curious about what you think because of your educated and thoughtful discussion here. But I do take your point that the plot point of the reveal wouldn’t align with church doctrine.
@@shultzcg I’ve been thinking a lot about both of these questions. I’m going to link to an article from an excellent site called Canon Law Made Easy. In the meantime, I can offer some reflections. This hypothetical situation recalls the phenomenon of Sedevacantism, which describes Catholic schismatics who believe that there is not a current legitimate pope. Some believe Francis is illegitimate, and some believe there hasn’t been a legitimate pope for centuries. The varrying theories under one umbrella is a clue that there’s no solid foundation for this conspiracy. But it is a theory built on doubt. Which is why it’s ironic when Cardinal Lawrence calls doubt a unifier, because this is a case where doubt has caused schism and disunity. The thing about doubts is that they cannot be answered. There’s actually no way of knowing for sure that any pope was not an intersex female. As for how that would effect the validity of the Church and sacraments, especially for those who have died without knowing their invalidity, a sacrament is a willing participation between layman and priest. I would hope that the grace and providence of God would take this into account, but I am not God. This is where some detailed research on the part of Canon lawyers becomes useful. I can’t give you a definitive answer unfortunately, but I hope this article sets you on the right path to find answers. Faith, not doubt, is what unifies. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/09/17/invalid-baptisms-and-unaccountable-clergy/
Woke means subscribing to ideas like not knowing the difference between a man and a woman. Men playing womens sports. Believing that there are more than 2 sexes. Going along with sex changes. Believing, especially as a Christian, that homosexuality is not a sin, but just a choice. The whole insistance on throwing out the pronouns to address people, and having pronouns of choice. The movie is a thinnly vailed attack on the Catholic Church. They have a Cardinal in the movie who wants to make the church woke by including homosexuality as part of the church. The character Cardinal Benitez, is presented as the wisest most kind hearted person, even though he accepts abortion and homosexuality; and is a genetic woman. That is woke... To top it off they name this new Pope ... Pope Innocence.
I don't think the term invalid can be applied here. The Sacrament of Baptism is available to them whether or not their parents are validly married. If you're asking whether they are illegitimate, I'll direct you to this article which addresses your question in detail. Merry Christmas! canonlawmadeeasy.com/2022/06/16/putative-marriage-why-arent-the-children-illegitimate/
I may be wrong, but even the so-called “liberals” do not give a great impression. Cardinal Tambley was somewhat liberal (more, following the wind), yet he was also basically a symoniac, one of the worst sin that a Catholic, let alone a high prelate, can do. Bellini initially states that he does not want the Office nor is he ambitious, but deep down he is not indifferent. Tedesco is a bit less annoying in the novel than he is in the film, I think. Robert Harris makes him start conversations in a not unreasonable way, then go rather "over the top”. I believe that at least the novel makes the characters realistically complicated and conflicted (the latter is particularly true for the protagonist, Cardinal Lomeli, Lawrence in the film).
Fun fact: yes in the book the Cardinal is an Italian man named Lomeli. Of course since it's Fiennes playing it they turned into an Anglo in the movie (Fiennes speaks some good Italian in the movie but with a recognizable accent, probably doing otherwise is beyond him), but as I was saying the funny part is that "Lomeli" is a made-up surname, there are zero people in Italy with that family name I checked. There are some LomeLLis, with two Ls. Harris could have checked, doesn't sound Italian at all without the double L.
@FabioRossettiFI 100% fiction then... curious tho, I would have thought that "Lomeli" might come from "Lo Meli", thus from somebody who used to grow... apples, or a beekeeper. Not that this matters.
Tedesco is not involved in any scandals, but lacks the overall support to become Pope. This is consistent with how conclaves have turned out. Conservatives generally don't have overall support, especially in the last several conclaves. The film does nothing to prove him wrong on any point, and his insights into division are relevant to our time. His calls for unity and rebuilding a strong traditional Christendom resonate strongly with the college of cardinals, but Benitez's compassion and humility won them over.
@@JohnFromAccounting Well, aside ftom the fact that I do not know well what happened in the latest conclaves, and that Joseph Ratzinger was considered a "conservative", I have no qualms with what you say. As a note, I still prefer Tedesco as he is portraied in the novel. He's a bit more complicated and "nuanced" character there than in the film....
? It's FICTION. Nobody really cares about Vatican politics, but it creates a context for drama. Do you read novels? Robert Harris chooses a real context (usually historical) to set his fiction and he chooses moments in time that have potential for drama. What we all know about the Vatican is that has been a hotbed of greed, violence, sexual impropriety and power struggles for many centuries. You need to take into account that everyone in the audience knows that these are the kind of people who abuse children and / or knowingly protect child abusers from the law, so we're not going to buy into much 'holiness' from a cast of priests. The makers of this movie did not want to provoke derisive laughter from the audience about the utter hypocrisy of Roman Catholicism, as this would have detracted from the drama.
i think people i mean critic or some saying it have an agenda because of the twist but it don't see any agenda in the movie the pope have a real birth defect and he is not pretending and also it not even call Tran that's just how people assume it because they don't know anything about the birth defect so they conclude it a Tran agenda in the movie critic need to study more on birth defect and stop comparing to something that not real like regular men or woman trying to be what they not , also most of these pastors had big secret in the movie that is way more problematic than the new pope but again critic or so ignore that and go directly to the new pope and condemn the movie. its was a good movie and the ending made perfect Sense in the situation don't know what critic expect to happen at the end a romance ?,suicide? i guess it was not dramatic enough so let put Tran agenda lol wow nothing make people happy huh
Just because a quadruple amputee wants to be a life guard doesn't mean they meet the requirements of being one. They are still as valuable as every other human.
@@DFMoray HA! My favorite part is when Snyder cites Robin Williams in Alladin as a fourth wall break that “didn’t work.” Okay, Blake. Will check out Anatomy of a Story! - Michael
This is a great example of an "ad hominem" logical fallacy which renders an argument illogical. And to be fair, its a well made movie but it isn't great. The story in fact is practically nonsensical and the final plot twist is practically irrelevant to the plot of the movie. "The message" is so ham fisted that you will come out the other end feeling a bit sore (that is, if you're eyes are open). It's straight up propaganda, just like your slogan of a comment.
Fiction and entertainment. I think these members of the CFC are expecting too much of this film. It's not meant to be theologically accurate nor to protocols of the Roman Catholic Church.
Can I just say without offending people, this is a fictional movie based on a book, is not real life and the move is actually a copy of they book they haven't move an inch. Therefore is not real. Is called fiction just like the crown on netflix. People need to understand that....
It’s fiction. But it’ll also a blasphemous wish fulfillment fantasy from ideologically driven people. In other words it’s anti catholic propaganda. Understand that.
Please stop repeating statements that are untrue. Women used to be ordained sacramentally in the early church. There is plenty of evidence for sacramental ordination of women deacons. And there is quite a lot of evidence women were presbyters, they celebrated Eucharist, they were even bishops. It was gradually suprresed. I know that current Roman Catholic Church doctrine but it is based on false assumptions and denial. Other Catholic Churches (like Old Catholics) recognised it quite a while ago and they ordain sacramentally women. It is perfectly valid. Concerning the movie: if the late pope accepted an intersex priest, he changed the doctrine in this way. He confirmed Benitez was validly ordained.
By the way, early Christian art portraied sometimes Jesus as intersex. What if it were the historical fact? How can we know Jesus was purely male? If we believe in the Virgin birth, then His all human DNA came from a woman, so He might have had chromosomes XX, and not XY.
Robert Harris writes FICTION, but he is well known to be an excellent researcher, therefore I would expect this story have a somewhat more honest basis than what we have ever seen in the culture of the Vatican itself. What we all know about cardinals and priests is that what they actually DO is that they cover for each other's criminality.
I thought Cardinal Lawrence's railing against certainty and finding merit in doubt to be the movie's most sublime moment. To me, the movie likens Lawrence to the Apostles, who hid following the crucifixion and death of Jesus. In an ultimate test of faith, he choses to abide within the Church as best he can, he choses faithful service in light of the foibles of his peers, and he quietly reasons God, ultimately finding solace and belief in God, despite every thought we humans might use to reject God. The last five minutes of the film, I could have easily missed. It seems the movie business feels it is obligatory to shock the audience.
The movie took that doubt scene right from the book.
I enjoyed this movie. People have to remember this is a movie. It’s fiction. The ending creates a question for people to ponder. A what if.
It’s oddly similar to the athletes competing in the Olympics in boxing this summer.
The ending also reflects the conversation on whether the church is meant to be stagnant and not responding to the times or to address the problems as they are present.
I thought it was a good thought experiment. The film is beautifully shot and acted. We have to remember it’s a movie!!!
@@WJHDetroit There definitely needs to be a conversation about the current spiritual warfare that is going on in the world - The church will always go back to the teachings that are well established in order to address the issues we have today... We ALREADY have many writings that discuss human sexuality and chastity, like The Theology of the Body, Humanae Vitae, the Catechism, and more. Plus there are many books written by Catholics who are faithful to the church and have valuable conversations about all the issues we face in our world.
I wouldn't say the church is stagnant at all but is trying to address all the issues regarding sexuality and the roles of men and women, marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc. The reason I wouldn't watch this film is to purposefully deprive it of any monetary gain from my watching it as well as not entertaining that which spews false and incorrect teachings that are contrary to what the Catholic church actually teaches.
@@WJHDetroit And Cardinal Lawrence's first name was Thomas. Doubting Thomas!
@@LawnBunny777 True indeed, but then the earlier doubting St. Thomas will state clearly “My Lord and My God!”. Such a strong and simple statement of Faith hardly seen in the whole Gospel.
true.
What these reviewers seem to have missed about (spoiler alert--though these guys go into this in detail)
Cardinal Benitez's intersexuality is that he was unaware of it until he had an operation for something entirely unrelated; he was already an ordained priest, indeed an ordained cardinal, and the Pope himself was aware of this to the extent that the Pope himself was funding Benitez's trip to a Swiss clinic to remove the internal female organs, but Benitez ultimately declined because he realized it was how God made him, so how could that be bad. His resignation would not have been accepted.
@@KR-ll4dj This is an important misconception to clear up, so forgive me jumping in here. Even if Benitez went through the ordination ceremony, the ordination would be invalid because he’s not a biological man. There’s no loophole where Benitez would be grandfathered in. It wouldn’t even be a question of him resigning, he would never have been a priest. All of the sacraments he administered previously would also be invalid, and they would have to re-administered by a valid priest. And as Tom pointed out by referencing Abigail Favale and Fr. Tad (their articles provided in description) it is not bad to be intersex. Don’t mean to pick on you, I appreciate your comment! God bless.
-Michael
@@CatholicFilmClub Interesting take, but it begs the question of who is or isn't a "man" (for ordination purposes). Is a male with polydactylism not a man? Or with cancer? What about only one descended testicle? Obviously I'm not a Catholic, so this sort of retroactive invalidation is alien to me, especially with a genetic condition that a few centuries back would never be known. Is there some sort of blemish test to enter the priesthood? Not meaning to pick on you either--I am genuinely curious about this.
@@KR-ll4dj The 1983 Code of Canon Law is available online. Sections 1009-1054 address the requirements and impediments to ordination. You’ll see there are many reasons a bioligical man would not be fit for priesthood.
As far as how the Church would know someone like Benitez was a man, I would presume church officials would use the best available means to determine that. A genetic test would reveal conclusively whether Benitez’s chromosomes were XX, XY, or XXY. If the chromosome were XY then he would be a man.
If they were XX then the sacrament of Holy Orders Benitez received and all the sacraments she administered would always have been invalid. The only thing retroactive would be the revelation of her condition years after it was discovered.
Now the wrinkle here is that the Church only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and would approach XXY individuals by detemining which sex is most dominant. You can read Fr. Tad’s article in the video description for more detail.
So I will grant that up to now I’ve assumed that Benitez is dominant female because she has a uterus, hence the historectomy.
In real life, this situation would require immense prudence and transparency. But in Conclave the main characters keep their secrets and gamble with the souls of the world.
One thing missed in the discussion is that, from what I've heard from priests talking on this subject, it isn't just that they must be male, they must be fertile, normal functioning men. Just as a man cannot marry if he knows he's infertile, a man cannot be a priest. Now I know, they introduce this element of doubt since he didn't know, but for the sake of this conversation in these comments, a man is not just xy but also functioning. So for example if he loses his testicle in an accident before ordination, then he isn't able to be ordained. I'm not sure that afterwards there's any affect since impotence surely comes with advanced age for most men so it wouldn't invalidate priesthood. But just initially a man must be functioning, just like in marriage.
A man is giving his full self, including his sexuality in marriage or priesthood so if it is disordered it is not freely given.
I think your assessment that if he is found to be she with chromosomal testing then it would be invalid. Also I think even though xxy, or any combination involving y, is actually a male with defect, he still couldn't become a priest(since the vast majority of these defects result in sterility).
I think the whole conceit of the film is a bit disingenuous. There are very few of EVEN the very few intersex people that don't show malignancy in their very bodily presentation due to deficits of hormones etc. For most of these cases the parents and doctors are aware. There are very few that "pass" as a healthy specimen of male or female with intersex features. This is like saying if you live in utopia and you have magic powers and there's a Pegasus and they breathe water and ...and ... its just making up a completely impossible scenario.
@@CatholicFilmClub I agree that the film had an agenda and the end was contrived. However, this discussion about the hermaphrodite gambling with the souls of the world is a stretch. Souls are saved through their own deeds not through the priest. And to the point of “doubt”, clergy do keep silence about their secrets: pedophiles and homosexuals within the clergy.
I will never understand why people think that fictional movies and books need to represent anything accurately. It is a quite good movie - particularly regarding costumes, cinematography and the editing. The script is a classic story of political intrigue which could almost be put in any royal court in the world at any point in history.
And it very vaguely and broadly relies on the long history of conclave for its premise - which, yes, did sometimes get VERY political backstabbing and conspiratorial. No honest Catholic should be pretending the Church hasn't had its moments in history where it operated in quite spurious ways. It's just part of the long history of the institution.
@@Robespierre-lI They do when they make a show of representing everything accurately. This movie is obsessed with details and realism, so we’re judging it by the standards it set for itself.
It showed that institutions can be corrupt and political. It’s a reflection on a broader issue that the RC church
Very interesting discussion. I had just watched the film last night and while I found the cinematography and acting to be top notch. I found the actual meat of the film to be rather dull. It felt like they were trying to be provocative in the storytelling but instead everything was portrayed rather black and white with nothing really new to say. With most of the cast being portrayed very two dimensional aside from Lawrence who at least had a bit more character. I still enjoyed the film for the most part. Not quite in my favorites of the year. But still a visual feast with some great performances.
Thank you, I really appreciate that! On your point of being two dimensional, one of our favorite channels Moviewise made a great essay about how simplistically it was written. Would highly recommend it. And we just published a follow up episode on this film as well.
Really enjoyed hearing you guys’ perspectives! This channel is a welcomed addition to my other subscriptions! 😊
I appreciate your review and your Catholic perspective. While I won't defend the 'twist' as I'm not sure I was fully sold on it, I felt like the core dilemma of our leads was to try and elevate a Pope they felt would best move the church forward in a way they agreed with (or if not their ideal candidate, not their least favorite) and struggling to align around an ideal or plausible candidate. The movie slowly rolls out the reasons all our primary candidates are unfit for the role, including our 'liberal' candidate which then tempts our conflicted Dean to take on the mantle which itself proved him unworthy. The final dilemma being, that the best candidate was invalidly ordained (I didn't know why this was technically but the movie told me enough to know it was not typical) but the Dean decided to move forward with this choice as he still saw it as the best thing for the church as outside of that one detail, he clearly seemed like the best choice out of the remaining candidates (and they thought so too). Obviously, this is easier to digest if you aren't as knowledgeable about church procedures but the idea of the Catholic church covering up things that would make the church look bad was sadly not a stretch. Your explanation of the downstream impact of an invalid Cardinal would make this all the more likely, at least fictionally. Again, I appreciate your perspective but think you actually convinced me more that the movie might be more realistic than I initially thought.
I loved this film! Great acting, real thriller, beautiful production values. I don't doubt that the Catholic press would be clutching its pearls. But so what? Enjoyable, fine film making worthy of an Oscar nomination, no question.
[SPOILER]
I've wrote it before, but perhaps it was buried among the comments.
You know, I loved one of the final scenes, in which a gentle wind whispers above the cardinals. It is being shown from many sides. Bad or good, left or right, the cardinals recognize the biblical reference, and move straight to cast their vote.
I agree. I really loved some of those moments of ambiguity. The breeze entered the windows which had been broken by the car bomb (and the shutters were also broken letting in the light) but there was also a reference to the "mighty wind".
@@lobstermash "gentle breeze" ;-)
@@maxdepasquale2351 Not sure what you mean? The phrase "mighty wind" is associated with the account of Pentecost in the bible. That's what I thought of in the film. Actually in the King James translation the phrase is "a sound as of a rushing mighty wind" so it's a noise, not a breeze.
There may be an issue with translation, or perhaps just a misunderstanding.
I was referring to the encounter of Prophet Elijah with the Lord, of course in the Old Testament. Book of Kings, Chapter 19.
Elijah first runs into a very strong wind, so strong it could break mountains; but the Lord was not in that roary wind. Then there was a strong earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. Then there was a fire, but the Lord was not there. Then there was a mormour of a "gentle breeze" (we have the expression " "brezza gentile" in the Catholic Bible used in Italy). And there, the Lord spoke to Elijah...
Hope I made myself understood :-)
@@maxdepasquale2351 Yes indeed. I didn't recall the Book of Kings passage. There may be other references to wind signifying the presence of God, I don't recall. 🙂
I saw the film.
With its mistakes, still an opportunity to talk about what is accurate and what is not with people who might not otherwise be open to Catholic teachings.
As a Protestant/evangelical who enjoyed but sensed some discrepancies in this movie, this was such a helpful video!!
@@hartleyallen6385 So happy to hear that!
It's a movie not a documentary.
This movie was definitely made by the same tribe that had their tables flipped over by Jesus.
While I think the church needs to really come to grips with the fact that intersex and trans people exist, I agree the coda ending was ridiculous. I'm not Catholic, I know little about the religion though much of the history, and the very idea was idiotic. The Catholic Church and especially the Papacy is known for its intolerance and strict segregation of gender roles. I didn't find the ending insulting, as I'm not religious, but I do think it was stupid and undermined the entire story. It took what had been a compelling political thriller and made it trite.
Im Orthodox so Im not saying this because Im trying to defend my position. I don't think there should be a THEE pope. But I am a filmmaker, a writer and now a director. This movie is well made, slick propaganda. The idea of a person who knows they have ovaries accepting the position of a bishop would disqualify them from the position to begin with. The author of the book is a liberal and the director is not religious. These people think they are "fighting the good fight" but in reality they are just tool of the evil one working to erode and lead people astray. The way they portray the traditionalist cardinal in particular, slapping someone the first time we see him and calling for war. Its ridiculous. No priest, bishop, cardinal or any clergy could act out like that let alone in public without being removed shortly. Clergy are kind people or at the very least they must appear kind and wouldn't get away with that kind of behaviour. I'm surprised more people aren' talking about this. If they made a movie like this so biased about any other religion than Christianity it would be met with outrage and possibly even violence. But as Christ said the world hates you because it hated me first.
@@DFMoray Couldn’t agree more! (Except about thee pope thing of course.)
I may be wrong (I read the novel long time ago) but I seem to remember that in the book by Robert Harris, Cardinal Tedesco never calls for a "Holy War" against Islam. Yes, he points out to the great Battle of Lepanto, 1541, in which the Ottoman expansion into the Mediterranean was stopped; he claims that without it Europe would be Islamic now, and he laments that, while we have plenty of mosques in Italy, including Rome (?), churches in Saudi Arabia have to stay hidden. But he does not want armies invading the Middle East. And by no means he calls the average Islamic person an "animal", as he does in the movie.
These, and others - like Bellini yelling "it is a WAR!!" - are... drama moments added to the film to grasp the attention of the auditorium. But Robert Harris was more careful in his writing.
However, truth be told, the regrettable final twist of the plot is present in the novel, though not very articulated.
The movie was excellent.
I liked it too. Alot to reflect on. 🙂 Plus, people seem to forget it's HOLLYWOOD= a movie= fictional.
Ralph Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes spells his name in a funny way because he's a toff. Rafe Spall spells his name in a traditional way because his dad had played the part of Rafe the grocer's apprentice in the play The Knight of the Burning Pestle. You're welcome.
I’m a ‘card carrying’ follower of Jesus Christ. So much so that I have read Pope Benedict’s books about Jesus’ life from birth to resurrection. I’m not a Catholic, but I seek out books from scholars like Pope Benedict. Which is why Conclave interest me. I’m still processing the ending with careful & thoughtful discussion with my wife. Our takeaway at the moment is that Hollywood lazily inserted identity politics, and fearfully ignores a movie where the plot is Muslim fundamentalism vs moderates vs liberalism. It is so easy to demonize conservatives and Christians and Catholics. It is an interesting the twist at the end is a very rare condition.
The film was from the perspective of Lawrence, who is a liberal. I don't think it's showing Tedesco in a bad light, just that he's the prominent figure of the other faction.
@@JohnFromAccounting Well... in the film, if I recollect correctly, he seems to advocate a Holy War against Muslims...
Something that does NOT happen in the novel by Robert Harris.
I think you are underselling what the author is doing in maligning the Catholic Church. It is mentioned at least once that the Cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting a new Pope. By selecting a Pope whose ordination is invalid, the entire idea of this guidance is dismissed as silliness. Even worse is that the infallibility of the Pope in maintaining rules that the Holy Spirit later ignores insults the idea of an Apostolic Church.
@@davidhogenmiller248 Oh definitely not our intention to undersell that point. We have another video on Conclave coming out soon that goes into more detail on one particular scene.
I took a back step and enjoyed the film as an observer. What I would not do is take it as a true story, nor would I take the Catholic Church as part of God, or Jesus either. The Catholic Church ''is'' a fictional entity, a corporation which only exist by legal documents, proving it's property and gold. I never take the Catholic Church as a living being speaking for God. These men in their expensive costumes and rings are promoted by stages to become 'the elite' to be above others and make decisions for you... no different than communism and politicians. So I really enjoyed this fictional story showing what the Catholic Church really is, where it's own ego will destroy itself by living for centuries in their own world, the Vatican far away from reality.
I grant that the film does lean into its audience demographic's view- ie right vs left ideological views- and favors the left. And in that sense, the film is too catering to modern audiences as opposed to traditional catholic views in terms of a "balanced" view. But understand the makers of this movie appreciate their audience, who will pay to watch this, what Hollywood will give awards to, and as always have produced this as a combination of something "somewhat true" and a documentary. You are dissecting this as if it were an actual documentary! And as one with modern sensibilities/a lapsed catholic, as opposed to you both as a "cradle catholics", I have to ask, in a world that is learning (not just re: catholics) about how all over the world the patriarchy has ruled & continues to impose its rule, this movie challenges the notion that long held dogma continues to matter and why does a certifiably male have to be the Pope (challenging you and all traditional catholics to think outside of accepted dogma)? That is why Cardinal Lawrence/ Ralph Fiennes is ultimately cast as the hero- perhaps inexplicably by your dogmatic perspective- he accepts that it DOESN'T matter that a Pope could be intersex, because it DOESN'T impact & actually broadens the definition of what we would hope from a worldwide religion.
Patriarchy🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 yeah and while we're at it, why can't a satyr be pope, I mean why not?
@@j.h.9376because the world of this movie and the world we live in does not have satyrs. Intersex people exist and live life as much as you or I ever have and ever will.
@blakeyi6015 they exist but - 1. you can make a definitive ruling whether male or female since if there is any combo involving y chromosome would be a deformed male, all x's would be deformed female. These people are extremely rare and they usually have a mental disability related to chromosomal abnormalities. 2. I never said they don't exist I said it's as ridiculous as satyrs being a priest, not because they don't exist but because you cannot change WHAT a priest is. A priest has to be sexually functioning and normal. If his function or sexuality is compromised then he is not a candidate. Also having a mental disability is precluding. Priests sacrifice their natural fatherhood to serve others. They cannot be female or intersex or anything else like that. This is a ridiculous argument because you all are asking why a circle can't be a square- as if we were all just liberal enough, modernist enough we could change the fabric of reality. This isn't a manmade job that can go to a woman as well as a man. This is supernatural. This movie has a ridiculous premise.
This film is about Catholic subject matter don't you think correctly portraying them matters? if not that's fine but that's what this video is about.
@@YoujustgotJ1NXED This film is a political thriller that happens to be set at a Vatican conclave. It's actual subject matter is doubt, doubt about one's faith, institution, and self. By this standard it portrays the anguish and turmoil and despair correctly and accurately. That's what this movie is about.
I agree that Cardinal Lawrence's homily was just awful! It is our certainty in Christ that gives us our unity. However, before we talk "liberal" and "conservative", let's consider the letter of St. Paul to the Galatians: Gal. 3:26 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Notice that St. Paul doesn't say there is neither male nor female, as he said about the others. He said "nor is there male AND female" in Christ. Contextually, however, the most important word in the passage is in verse 29...the word "heirs". The Greek word for "heirs" here is "klēronomos", which is the plural nominative masculine. We know that in Paul's day, a woman could not inherit under most circumstances, but not so in the Kingdom that is not of this world. Both the male and female inherit God's Kingdom as if both are male heirs. As far as this broken world knows, we are all clothed in Christ, and we present to them "in persona Christi". I'm not sure the Church has fully come to terms with this truth, though St. Paul knew it right well.
This movie was based off a book. It told the story of the book. Did not have to "research" anything. It was a fictitious drama. Not a documentary. To treat it as such makes it more important than it is. And makes you two seem not connected to reality. May i suggest you review "The Wizard of OZ" next. Can talk about what insight the movie gave to life on a Kassas farm. Makes as much sense as what you are doing here.
It's spelled Kanss.
I’m enjoying listening to this conversation, but one question I have is what would happen if Cardinal Benitez had not discovered his condition. After all, it was discovered during an emergency appendectomy. Would God not recognize the sacraments performed by him even if no one - even Benitez himself - was aware that he was intersex?
And, to that end, what if it is never discovered by anyone but Benitez is, indeed chosen as Pope? Does that invalidate the idea that the cardinals are guided by the Holy Spirit in making this decision?
I’m genuinely curious about what you think because of your educated and thoughtful discussion here. But I do take your point that the plot point of the reveal wouldn’t align with church doctrine.
@@shultzcg I’ve been thinking a lot about both of these questions. I’m going to link to an article from an excellent site called Canon Law Made Easy. In the meantime, I can offer some reflections.
This hypothetical situation recalls the phenomenon of Sedevacantism, which describes Catholic schismatics who believe that there is not a current legitimate pope. Some believe Francis is illegitimate, and some believe there hasn’t been a legitimate pope for centuries. The varrying theories under one umbrella is a clue that there’s no solid foundation for this conspiracy. But it is a theory built on doubt. Which is why it’s ironic when Cardinal Lawrence calls doubt a unifier, because this is a case where doubt has caused schism and disunity.
The thing about doubts is that they cannot be answered. There’s actually no way of knowing for sure that any pope was not an intersex female.
As for how that would effect the validity of the Church and sacraments, especially for those who have died without knowing their invalidity, a sacrament is a willing participation between layman and priest. I would hope that the grace and providence of God would take this into account, but I am not God. This is where some detailed research on the part of Canon lawyers becomes useful. I can’t give you a definitive answer unfortunately, but I hope this article sets you on the right path to find answers. Faith, not doubt, is what unifies.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/09/17/invalid-baptisms-and-unaccountable-clergy/
@CatholicFilmClub Thank you for your response! I will definitely check out the source you included. Thanks again. ☺️
micheal coy objects to the film not proselytizing. nope, it doesn't AND it shouldn't. the film doesn't exist to make converts. do your job. Good film.
I thought most of the film was great. The last 10 percent was silly.
Woke, don't waste your money, and spare your soul.
What is “woke” ?
@@iemy2949 Are you asking what does the word "woke" mean, or what is woke about the movie?
@@greggergen9104 Both, but more the former.
Woke means subscribing to ideas like not knowing the difference between a man and a woman. Men playing womens sports. Believing that there are more than 2 sexes. Going along with sex changes. Believing, especially as a Christian, that homosexuality is not a sin, but just a choice. The whole insistance on throwing out the pronouns to address people, and having pronouns of choice. The movie is a thinnly vailed attack on the Catholic Church. They have a Cardinal in the movie who wants to make the church woke by including homosexuality as part of the church. The character Cardinal Benitez, is presented as the wisest most kind hearted person, even though he accepts abortion and homosexuality; and is a genetic woman. That is woke... To top it off they name this new Pope ... Pope Innocence.
The conservative cardinal does nothing wrong the entire film, while the liberals are embroiled in multiple big scandals.
so typically senior?
Are the children of a marriage annulled after their birth invalid?
I don't think the term invalid can be applied here. The Sacrament of Baptism is available to them whether or not their parents are validly married. If you're asking whether they are illegitimate, I'll direct you to this article which addresses your question in detail. Merry Christmas!
canonlawmadeeasy.com/2022/06/16/putative-marriage-why-arent-the-children-illegitimate/
Cardinal Tedesco is showed as the bad guy but he is actually right about thé islamisc threst to catholic people.
I may be wrong, but even the so-called “liberals” do not give a great impression. Cardinal Tambley was somewhat liberal (more, following the wind), yet he was also basically a symoniac, one of the worst sin that a Catholic, let alone a high prelate, can do. Bellini initially states that he does not want the Office nor is he ambitious, but deep down he is not indifferent.
Tedesco is a bit less annoying in the novel than he is in the film, I think. Robert Harris makes him start conversations in a not unreasonable way, then go rather "over the top”.
I believe that at least the novel makes the characters realistically complicated and conflicted (the latter is particularly true for the protagonist, Cardinal Lomeli, Lawrence in the film).
Fun fact: yes in the book the Cardinal is an Italian man named Lomeli. Of course since it's Fiennes playing it they turned into an Anglo in the movie (Fiennes speaks some good Italian in the movie but with a recognizable accent, probably doing otherwise is beyond him), but as I was saying the funny part is that "Lomeli" is a made-up surname, there are zero people in Italy with that family name I checked. There are some LomeLLis, with two Ls. Harris could have checked, doesn't sound Italian at all without the double L.
@FabioRossettiFI 100% fiction then... curious tho, I would have thought that "Lomeli" might come from "Lo Meli", thus from somebody who used to grow... apples, or a beekeeper. Not that this matters.
Tedesco is not involved in any scandals, but lacks the overall support to become Pope. This is consistent with how conclaves have turned out. Conservatives generally don't have overall support, especially in the last several conclaves. The film does nothing to prove him wrong on any point, and his insights into division are relevant to our time. His calls for unity and rebuilding a strong traditional Christendom resonate strongly with the college of cardinals, but Benitez's compassion and humility won them over.
@@JohnFromAccounting Well, aside ftom the fact that I do not know well what happened in the latest conclaves, and that Joseph Ratzinger was considered a "conservative", I have no qualms with what you say.
As a note, I still prefer Tedesco as he is portraied in the novel. He's a bit more complicated and "nuanced" character there than in the film....
liberal propaganda
? It's FICTION. Nobody really cares about Vatican politics, but it creates a context for drama. Do you read novels? Robert Harris chooses a real context (usually historical) to set his fiction and he chooses moments in time that have potential for drama. What we all know about the Vatican is that has been a hotbed of greed, violence, sexual impropriety and power struggles for many centuries. You need to take into account that everyone in the audience knows that these are the kind of people who abuse children and / or knowingly protect child abusers from the law, so we're not going to buy into much 'holiness' from a cast of priests. The makers of this movie did not want to provoke derisive laughter from the audience about the utter hypocrisy of Roman Catholicism, as this would have detracted from the drama.
i think people i mean critic or some saying it have an agenda because of the twist but it don't see any agenda in the movie the pope have a real birth defect and he is not pretending and also it not even call Tran that's just how people assume it because they don't know anything about the birth defect so they conclude it a Tran agenda in the movie critic need to study more on birth defect and stop comparing to something that not real like regular men or woman trying to be what they not , also most of these pastors had big secret in the movie that is way more problematic than the new pope but again critic or so ignore that and go directly to the new pope and condemn the movie. its was a good movie and the ending made perfect Sense in the situation don't know what critic expect to happen at the end a romance ?,suicide? i guess it was not dramatic enough so let put Tran agenda lol wow nothing make people happy huh
15:28 and he's gone!
@@YoujustgotJ1NXED We call it Movie Magic in the biz ;)
28:30 so “god made me this way” but even if he did the church is unable to give them any position of power and authority let alone complete equity?
Because the Church was made by heterosexual cisgender judgmental men, not God.
Just because a quadruple amputee wants to be a life guard doesn't mean they meet the requirements of being one. They are still as valuable as every other human.
@ yeah I’m familiar with the scripted rebuttals thanks sub kink bottom
Save the Cat is terrible. Read John Truby Anatomy of story.
@@DFMoray HA! My favorite part is when Snyder cites Robin Williams in Alladin as a fourth wall break that “didn’t work.” Okay, Blake. Will check out Anatomy of a Story! - Michael
Great movie! Dismiss the bad reviews given by knuckle draggers.
This is a great example of an "ad hominem" logical fallacy which renders an argument illogical. And to be fair, its a well made movie but it isn't great. The story in fact is practically nonsensical and the final plot twist is practically irrelevant to the plot of the movie. "The message" is so ham fisted that you will come out the other end feeling a bit sore (that is, if you're eyes are open). It's straight up propaganda, just like your slogan of a comment.
@@DFMoray Speaking of knuckle draggers, thanks for your reply.
I enjoyed it too.
Fiction and entertainment. I think these members of the CFC are expecting too much of this film. It's not meant to be theologically accurate nor to protocols of the Roman Catholic Church.
Can I just say without offending people, this is a fictional movie based on a book, is not real life and the move is actually a copy of they book they haven't move an inch. Therefore is not real. Is called fiction just like the crown on netflix. People need to understand that....
It’s fiction. But it’ll also a blasphemous wish fulfillment fantasy from ideologically driven people. In other words it’s anti catholic propaganda.
Understand that.
OMG, wallowing in their misogyny...
I didnt know the plot twist until watching the movie. It made me disgusted of the whole thing.
Please stop repeating statements that are untrue. Women used to be ordained sacramentally in the early church. There is plenty of evidence for sacramental ordination of women deacons. And there is quite a lot of evidence women were presbyters, they celebrated Eucharist, they were even bishops. It was gradually suprresed. I know that current Roman Catholic Church doctrine but it is based on false assumptions and denial. Other Catholic Churches (like Old Catholics) recognised it quite a while ago and they ordain sacramentally women. It is perfectly valid.
Concerning the movie: if the late pope accepted an intersex priest, he changed the doctrine in this way. He confirmed Benitez was validly ordained.
Lmao.
More reddit atheist propaganda.
Uhh no.
Pretty the Church Fathers and First Popes debunked your BS Claims.
Nice try.
By the way, early Christian art portraied sometimes Jesus as intersex. What if it were the historical fact? How can we know Jesus was purely male? If we believe in the Virgin birth, then His all human DNA came from a woman, so He might have had chromosomes XX, and not XY.
Good film.
Great movie. Fiction. Not sure they even wanted to be accurate