The director responds

19 comments

• Dom:

  It’s all my fault. No, he didn’t threaten me with a can of whoop-ass, but another commenter. I did mention you as another Salem resident who might beg to differ, citing your own remarks in your earlier post, and suggesting (with tongue firmly in cheek) that he not threaten you as he did others.

  Far be it from me to suggest you’re any less than a big ol’ teddy bear, eh?

• Dom,
  I have to encourage you to watch the movie before you make another comment. (You can see it on the PBS Frontline website.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/handofgod/) I have seen it and I only wish it was available earlier. It is done extremely well and highlights the real issues behind the whole scene.

  Remember Dom, Fr. Birmingham, as alleged in the film, violated the seal of confession by using information learned in confession to then invite his victims to counseling sessions that were just to open them up to abuse. This is an evil on physical and spiritual levels.

  I saw the film and I found it fair. As for the issues of the fake eucharist etc. Dom, Birmingham, according to the many victims, made a mockery of some of the holiest of holies in confessional. The film whether intentional or not, really brings a symbolic dimension that demonstrates the evil behind actions in this story. I have not read David Alexander’s review as of this writing. However, I have seen the movie and I really encourage you to do the same. Then comment as you wish.

• Fr. Carr, I haven’t made any judgments about the movie itself, as you would see if you read my previous blog entry on it as well. I’ve only blogged on David’s reaction, my secondhand knowledge of the situation here in Salem, and then the director’s reaction to David.

  Perhaps you don’t intend it that way, but I do bristle when people tell what I can and cannot comment on.

• Hi Dom,
  I did not intend my words to come out that way. I was more than anything encouraging you to see the movie and then making a comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

• I wish the documentary had explored in greater detail Joe’s mother’s and sister’s reasons for still attending Mass in spite of the damage Church representatives have done to their family.  They would surely have something wise to offer. 

  The scene with the hosts will probably be the scene remembered when the rest of the film is forgotten.  It certainly worked well for getting attention, considering the number of objections to it.  I can see the point being made, but at the same time can also see that it discredits slightly the rest of the film’s content in the eyes of those of us who believe.

  Confession was abused.  Were those hosts included because confession was not the only sacrament abused?  Did Joe leave something out of the documentary?  What was the nature of the “counseling sessions”?  What sort of spirituality was the priest delivering? 

  In Toledo at the trial of the priest who murdered a nun, some blasphemous spirituality was hinted if not actually graphically described.  Was that an isolated incident, or was such activity part of the Boston scene as well?

• The temptation is very great to shoot the messenger.

  He claims that the scandal caused him and his brother to lose the faith. I know many Catholics who are scandalized in the same way. His use of the Eucharist in his imagery is offensive, but it is only a tiny part of the film, and it certainly vehiculates what it feels like to have lost the faith because of sexual scandals.

  Denial among conservatives stems from their clutching at a stifling authoritarian and mystified Catholicism that is a matrix of abuse. Denial among liberals stems from their sense that a crackdown on clerical sex with minors could be the thin edge of a crackdown on liberal sexual outlooks generally.

  I found the film very disturbing for what it suggests about the clerical culture. The light in the darkness was the role and comments of the parents.

• That’s a nice straw man you’ve constructed for yourself. I won’t speak for liberals, not being one, but I don’t know a single conservative who denies the Scandal because they are clutching at authoritarianism. If they exist they are an exceedingly small minority and not representative of most.

  Your remark about “mystified Catholicism that is a matrix of abuse” sounds like someone who rejects the Church’s teachings because they think Catholic sexual morality is a cause of the abuse. Stop me if I’m off base here.

• Authoritarian and mystified Catholicism has been used by the circle of abusers, but abuse does not preclude use as people have been reminding me for the last ten years.  Authority and mystery are authentic and legitimate parts of the Church Christ gave us.

  God, afterall, is mystery, and the leadership of the popes has given us the essential locus that enabled the faith to survive countless attacks.  Take away our established authority and we devolve into a hornets’ nest of factions.  Authority is legitimate and necessary. 

  But just as necessary is holiness and God-centeredness in that authority.  We seem to be lacking in those attributes at this present juncture. 

  The social gospel is no substitute for adoration.  The second commandment of love cannot erase the first.  When we have the two commandments of love back in their proper order, we will have some hope of recovery.  Those inside the Church who would like to undermine our authoritarian structure will find their job more difficult if we get our priorities in order.

• Dom: While Fr. O’Leary is being his usual snarky self, I (as a conservative) know of at least one example of what he describes.  Tom Herron [CULTURE WARS contributor and E. Michael Jones associate] at his blog [Catholic Neocon Observer] has accused all Catholic commentators who have discussed the Scandal (he denounces NRO and MArk Shea in particular) of being “neocons” who are wittingly or unwittingly co-operating with a conspiracy to attack the Church.  His only evidence for this is that false accusations of sexual misconduct by priests have often been used as anti-Catholic propaganda.
    There are only three possible explanations for this attitude:
  (1) Herron believes that all the priests accused of sexual abuse are in fact innocent victims of a frame-up – this implies he is grossly and wilfully ignorant of the facts.
  (2) Herron is in denial out of loyalty to what he calls “his Catholic tribe” and is not prepared to look at the facts – as morally obnoxious as the first position, with an added degree of wilful bad faith.
  (3)Herron accepts that some or all of these priests were guilty, but believes their crimes should have been covered up out of tribal loyalty.

• Herron is in an extreme minority.

• Fr O’Leary, if you’re still on this thread, I am not a conservative, and I am not in denial, that I know of. I have read many of testimonies of abuse and I have suffered through them. I am definitely opposed to covering up Church abuse for the sake of the Church’s image; I believe that Christ’s image in the Church was defaced by initial abuses, and then again by our denial and our refusal to reach out immediately to our own victims.
  However, I read your post with an especially open heart because you are a priest. And I was wounded by your words about the Church. If you, a spouse of the Church, spit at Her rather than beg for Her healing, what will the “little ones” do?
  Further, I have yet to read a trustworthy account of this film. If we have already read numerous stories of profanity and abuse, is there anything said in this film that has not already been said? And if it was this film that caused you to label traditional Catholicism as “stifling authoritarian and mystified” then I opt not to view it and I worry that an invitation to do so is more temptation than obligation.
  Perhaps I have misunderstood your words. If so, I apologize for my reaction. I would welcome any correction you have to offer.

• “Further, I have yet to read a trustworthy account of this film.”

  (Ahem!)

  man with black hat: Biting the Hand

• I should have been more specific about “trustworthiness” in my own context, I guess. David, your review seemed fair and SANE, intellectually trustworthy. But when I approach a film like this, I’m asking “Is it worth getting sick over?” because the chances are, it will make me physically and emotionally ill for a time. Watching graphic abuse triggers my own childhood experiences. (none of which involved the clergy)It may also disturb my conscience if it is sacrilegious.
  Some examples: the book “The DaVinci Code” was sickening and not worth it at all.
  Reading the first few paragraphs of Eve Ensler’s play was like experiencing rape. I consider the “Vagina Monologues” to be violent and uncalled for.
  On the other hand, “The Magdalen Sisters”, as agonizing as it was to view, is a film I would recommend as a “must see” for all who can stomach it. Do you see the differences among the three?
  So, I guess I’m asking whether this is a film by which we suffer sacrilege with the victims, which
  would give the experience value, or is it unnecessarily graphic? There are way too many survivors among us to give such a film a general recommendation unless it really is a “must see”.

• On a less personal but more important note, the question I would ask of a trustworthy authority is whether it is a sin to watch this film (would I be cooperating in an attack on the Church, both Body and Head?) or would it be an act of mercy?
  Many people could give opinions on this, but those opinions would have little authority. And those whose judgments have come with authority express them in words that don’t sound trustworthy to me.

• I held my breath, jumped in, and answered my own questions. As it turned out, the only sharks in this particular sea (see?) are those who were given apostolic authority, and abused it. Paul is the “kid” who tells us that the Emperor is naked. Joe records it gracefully and with honesty. The sacrilege expressed in this film is the abuse of the true Eucharist, not the depiction of Communion wafers and coins.
  The reason to see this film is that it is, to my knowledge, the first time the truth has been told not to do harm, but as part of the Church’s recovery. If this truth makes us ill at first, the illness IS worth it.
  I would suggest that all those who are nervous about watching “The Hand of God” watch the first part, which contains nothing visually shocking, and then decide. My guess is that you, like me, will decide to persevere once you see Paul’s face and hear his voice. In him I found pain, anger, sorrow, compassion, and truth—not vengeance.
  I hope that this film will prompt us to contrition as One Body, because since 2002 that is what I’ve strongly felt we need to do in order to see the face of Christ IN our Church again, rather than outside it.
  The only temptation offered to me by “The Hand of God” was a flash of my violence. I REALLY wanted to squish the bishop who said “You’re a sad little man.” I don’t know if that’s a sign of my weakness, or step towards recovery, but there it is.
  May God bless abundantly these sons of His whose courageous witness is surely a work of mercy. I pray that we all heal as one, but that these and all those who suffered at our hands heal first.

• I’ve been thinking for a while now that one of the steps toward healing for everyone might be a mandatory prayer included among the petitions made during Mass for the healing of all those damaged by priestly sexual abuse, whether they be victims, family members, or priests unjustly accused.  If the prayer were said at every Mass in every parish in America for a year or more, we might begin to address the magnitude of the morass we have been plunged into.  Just doing it once, or on one Sunday, however, is so inadequate as to almost be a farce.

• Carrie, any ideas for the proper wording of such a petition? There are children in attendance. I have a feeling some pastors who might otherwise pray specifically for this intention don’t for that reason. We pray for “all who have suffered from abuse and addiction” or something similar.
  I’d like to see an actual day of prayer and penance assigned to this cause in the U.S. Also, I look at Lithuania’s Hill of Crosses, and somehow, it seems to me we should be doing s’thing like that to mourn our victims’ innocence with them…

• I’m really not good at wording prayers, joanne.  I’ve often marveled at the wording of petitions during Mass.  Someone much more skilled than I would be the one to do it.  There are people around who could.

  Sensibilities of youth need to be respected, but it does need to address specifically the matter at hand, and not be generalized.  There can be no doubt that priestly sexual abuse is precisely what is being prayed about. 

  Priests who reject such prayer may in fact be using the youth as an excuse to avoid praying it.  We have ample evidence of lying and disingenuousness on the topic of abuse among the clergy, so dissembling here would be in character in some cases.

  I’m not in favor of a day of prayer and penance.  It’s too much of a one-night-stand, a fly-by-night answer to a long-standing crime.  A few people attend.  Some victims feel acknowledged.  Most of the laity goes on about its business as though nothing happened.  For them nothing did.  A mandatory prayer for those harmed, recited at every Mass for a long period of time, would get it up front and center to everyone who still attends Church.  Not only would it represent a clear acknowledgement of the fact that the abuse happened, it would also clearly place the mind of the Church in opposition to those actions that took place, which is the message so many victims are wishing for.

  This would have the added advantage of not needing to be funded, not needing a committee to structure the event, not being subject to the various political factions within the Church to undermine it, and not requiring any extra time or effort on the part of the general laity to address it.  The biggest obstacle would be the rejection of it by the liberal bishops who have been involved, and those priests who agree with them.

• ‘Clerical’ or ‘clergy’ would work. Kids too young to know what happened wouldn’t know those words…and if there’s a children’s Mass, the children would be elsewhere during the Prayer of the Faithful…
  Lots to think about. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a DAY and a memorial, as well. If the bishops called a national annual day of prayer and penance, the pastors couldn’t ignore that easily.
  Anything along those lines is better than hearing, continually, “What? We said we were sorry.” which always makes me wondered if “we” whispered ‘sorry’ in a well, because the victims sure didn’t hear it, and I never heard it, except from Cardinal O’Malley who could give a course on audible apologies. What I keep asking is when we, the laity, are going to be invited to join in the repentance.
  Come to think of it, your idea of weekly prayer could rightly include our sorrow as well as our petition for healing.