The World Book
Dictionary
gives four very direct, precise and crisp definitions of the
word
“scandal”. The first
covers the most
ground, indicating source: “A shameful action, condition, or
event that brings
disgrace or offends public opinion”. The
second is in reference to effect: “damage to reputation;
disgrace”. The third
indicates the means by which it is
transmitted: “public talk that will hurt. . .reputation”. And the fourth is the most
specific of all:
“discredit to religion caused by irreligious conduct or moral
lapse.” Aside from
reputation, religion itself or a
basic standard of morality widely respected is defamed by
blatant wrongdoing.
The scandal that
has
descended upon the Catholic Church over widespread sexual abuse
of children by
ordained clergy fits each and every one of these shades of
definition. The action
of the priests has created a
“condition” that public opinion has caught up with. The Church’s reputation has
been irrevocably
tainted by this disgraceful and, as it turns out, commonplace
behavior. It has
unleashed a public outrage that has
taken the form of unrelenting comment and discussion to which
every citizen of
the world has been privy; it has by now passed the point of
rumor. And it almost
goes without saying that
religious scruple and basic standards of decency shared by all
civilized
nations have been discredited. Some
scandals
have been so localized and have involved so few individuals and
institutions that over a meager period of time they pass from
the public
memory. But this one is
not likely to
succumb to that fate.
For that
unlikelihood we have
a team of four journalists from the Boston Globe to thank. They wore out layers of
figurative and maybe
literal shoe leather between 2001 and 2002 tracking down the
evidence from many
documented sources to expose this insidious and clandestine
practice on the
part of a staggering array of priests. The team is called
Spotlight, a
specialized group who are given the license to spend as much
time – months and
years if necessary – completing a crucial and complicated
investigation on a
high voltage story.
Michael Keaton,
Mark Ruffalo,
Rachel McAdams and Brian d’Arcy James portray this devoted
quartet of inquiring
minds, and Liev Schreiber is the managing editor who incites the
team to take
on the subject. All of
them do excellent
work bringing these contributing individuals to vivid life, and
Stanley Tucci
gives a well restrained but acute portrayal of a lawyer for
victims who for
years has been probing for justice and cautiously warms up to
what the Globe is
planning. There are no
lead players;
what we have is an ensemble cast; everyone is a supporting
player, but they
perform together brilliantly. Tom
McCarthy
directed the film and along with Josh Singer knocked out the
extraordinary screenplay. He
has come
forth with an excellently modulated production that spares no
essential detail
and gives an objective account of both the issue and the
tireless labor.
We should
appreciate,
however, that these journalists are not portrayed as white
knight
crusaders. It has to be
faced by the
newspaper staff that they had had clues pointing toward the
sickness years
before and had not acted upon them.
There are arguments, struggles of conscience and world
weariness that
they have to contend with in the course of their time-consuming
work.
What memories do
I carry away
from my two viewings? I
will never rub
from my mind the voices of victims recounting the experience of
being molested
and raped by clergymen whom they trusted as a child of eleven or
twelve. It is one thing
for us to be told the nature
of the priests’ behavior; it is something far more shocking and
heartbreaking
to hear one of them report the intricate step-by-step details of
it. None of the ones we
hear from are able to get
through their stories without sobbing. I
have been brought to tears by many films in my lifetime, but the
ones I shed
while hearing these conversations reached a primal level in my
inner child that
was almost paralyzing. My
eyes water up
as I write these words.
And I credit
McCarthy for not
smoothing them over; the reporters taking down the explicit
details are dogged
as they have to be but compassionate.
How grateful we should be that no reenactments were
attempted; that
would have been a cruel exploitation. What is spoken straight to
camera is more
than adequate. One of
these victims told
about how he was “groomed” for the seduction.
No one it seems was grabbed and forcibly pinned down and
painfully
assaulted. They were
trapped by their
own innocent assumption of the adult priest’s authority and by
the cunning of
the priest with whom they had dressed altars and from whom they
had taken
Communion. All of these
bit players who
portray the victims do a magnificent job of getting under the
character’s
skin. It makes us wonder
if they
themselves are actual victims hired off the street for the
filming.
What else will I
be unable to
forget? In one scene a
suspected priest,
already retired, is contacted, who promptly admits that he
“fooled around with”
kids but claims he never actually raped anyone.
How so? Because
he got no
pleasure from it! A rape
is only the
genuine article if the rapist gets pleasure out of it! This pitiful man does not
take into account
the experience of the kid being abused, only how he the adult
was
affected. Heaven help
us!
I will also not
forget the
culture of secrecy that surrounded the phenomenon – guilty
priests being
shuttled around from parish to parish without consequences and
left free to
commit the same crime all over again in each parish with
impunity. The reporters
run smack up against walls of
resistance that block their path at every turn, not just on the
part of the
Church but city officials and courts that seal off offending
documents. The team even
uncovers collusion on the part
of an Archbishop! In one
scene we hear
the remark that it takes a village to raise a child and takes no
less of a
village to abuse one.
I will also
remember the
rationale that was used in an attempt to dissuade the Globe
journalists from
continuing with their mission. The
city
of Boston must be protected from unfavorable publicity and since
the Church is
deeply intertwined with the common life of that city, having
allegedly done
wonders for it, that sacrosanct body must be granted immunity
from any kind of
prosecution. Schreiber’s
managing editor
as it so happens is Jewish, and the unkindest and most
condescending cut
delivered in the course of the film is the Archbishop making him
a gift of the
Catechism upon his arrival on the job.
Because the man was not considered a true Bostonian,
everyone in high
places figured he would not last and that upon his departure
presumably the
scandal would be avoided. They
were in
for a huge surprise!
And finally, I
will remember
what we are told in the closing credits.
We are left at the very end with a long, long list of the
localities
worldwide where child abuse by priests has since been uncovered. It is mind blowing.
“Spotlight”
takes its place
among the very finest of movie docudramas (“The Insider” and
“All the
President’s Men” otherwise leading the pack for me). Like its predecessors it
does not sacrifice
vital issues to the easy manipulation of fact for the sake of
excessive
“dramatic effect”. And
it is
thorough! It just might
be the greatest
movie about journalism ever made.
I say
maybe; time will tell!
To read other
entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com.
To learn about me consult on the website the blog entry for
August 9, 2013.
If you visit online resume websites, you will see how many people use their service and how many of them stay satisfied with the level and quality of the resume they write for them. That's really a good assistance for job applicants.
ReplyDelete