Jubilee of Ecclesial Movements, Associations and New Communities

 The days 7th-8th June 2025 are being celebrated as a Jubilee of Ecclesial Movements, Associations and New Communities. The days are chosen to be those of the Vigil and celebration of the Feast of Pentecost, when the Church celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit on the infant Church. Some examples of the movements that might be represented in the celebration of this Jubilee are: Communion and Liberation, the Focolare, the Charismatic Renewal, the Legion of Mary and FAITH Movement. I also include SIGNIS as an ecclesial movement, though it has a specific commitment in the fields of film, media and communications. The Jubilee takes place immediately after the annual meeting of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life with the moderators of international associations of the faithful, ecclesial movements and new communities. Some 70 000 pilgrims are expected to take part.

The movements are due to meet with Pope Leo XIV in St Peter's Square on the Vigil of Pentecost, an event which re-creates a meeting of the movements with Pope St John Paul II on the eve of Pentecost in 1998. The memorable expression of that occasion is the reference that Pope St John Paul II made to the co-essentiality of the institutional and charismatic dimensions of the Church, developing the teaching of Lumen Gentium n.12:

The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church's constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God's People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church's charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities.

This meeting with St John Paul II took place in the context of the first World Congress of Ecclesial Movements and New Communities. The Holy Father referred to some of the difficulties that had occurred in the growth of these new movements and their relationship to the wider Church. 

Their birth and spread has brought to the Church's life an unexpected newness which is sometimes even disruptive. This has given rise to questions, uneasiness and tensions; at times it has led to presumptions and excesses on the one hand, and on the other, to numerous prejudices and reservations. It was a testing period for their fidelity, an important occasion for verifying the authenticity of their charisms.

Today a new stage is unfolding before you: that of ecclesial maturity. This does not mean that all problems have been solved. Rather, it is a challenge. A road to take. The Church expects from you the "mature" fruits of communion and commitment.

On the Vigil of Pentecost in 2006, the movements gathered again in St Peter's Square, this time with Pope Benedict XVI. After a reflection on the place of the Holy Spirit in creation and within the life of the Trinity (Pope Benedict's words on the abuse of creation foreshadow Pope Francis teaching on the same theme), Pope Benedict spoke on three words: life, freedom and unity.

When all that people want from life is to take possession of it, it becomes ever emptier and poorer; it is easy to end up seeking refuge in drugs, in the great deception. And doubts surface as to whether, in the end, life is truly a good.

No, we do not find life in this way. Jesus' words about life in abundance are found in the Good Shepherd discourse. His words are set in a double context.

Concerning the shepherd, Jesus tells us that he lays down his life. "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (cf. Jn 10: 18). It is only in giving life that it is found; life is not found by seeking to possess it. This is what we must learn from Christ; and the Holy Spirit teaches us that it is a pure gift, that it is God's gift of himself. The more one gives one's life for others, for goodness itself, the more abundantly the river of life flows.

Secondly, the Lord tells us that life unfolds in walking with the Shepherd who is familiar with the pasture - the places where the sources of life flow.

We find life in communion with the One who is life in person - in communion with the living God, a communion into which we are introduced by the Holy Spirit, who is called in the hymn of Vespers "fons vivus", a living source. ... 

Dear friends, the Movements were born precisely of the thirst for true life; they are Movements for life in every sense.

Speaking of freedom:

True freedom is demonstrated in responsibility, in a way of behaving in which one takes upon oneself a shared responsibility for the world, for oneself and for others.
The son, to whom things belong and who, consequently, does not let them be destroyed, is free. All the worldly responsibilities of which we have spoken are nevertheless partial responsibilities for a specific area, a specific State, etc.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, makes us sons and daughters of God. He involves us in the same responsibility that God has for his world, for the whole of humanity. He teaches us to look at the world, others and ourselves with God's eyes. We do not do good as slaves who are not free to act otherwise, but we do it because we are personally responsible for the world; because we love truth and goodness, because we love God himself and therefore, also his creatures. This is the true freedom to which the Holy Spirit wants to lead us. 

And of unity:

The Holy Spirit, in giving life and freedom, also gives unity. These are three gifts that are inseparable from one another.  ...

He wants your diversity and he wants you for the one body, in union with the permanent orders - the joints - of the Church, with the successors of the Apostles and with the Successor of St Peter. He does not lessen our efforts to learn the way of relating to one another; but he also shows us that he works with a view to the one body and in the unity of the one body. It is precisely in this way that unity obtains its strength and beauty.

May you take part in the edification of the one body! Pastors must be careful not to extinguish the Spirit (cf. I Thes 5: 19) and you will not cease to bring your gifts to the entire community. Once again, the Spirit blows where he wills. But his will is unity. He leads us towards Christ through his Body.

In a concluding word that foresees the theme of the Jubilee 2025, Pope Benedict observed:

The Holy Spirit gives believers a superior vision of the world, of life, of history, and makes them custodians of the hope that never disappoints.

It has been a common place since Vatican II to speak of a "universal call to holiness", that is, a call to Christian living that is derived from Baptism and Confirmation and that is addressed to all Christians. However, the response to that call is given in the specificity of the life of each individual, and for many people that specificity is found in the charism of one or other of the new movements or communities. Without the presence of these movements, pastoral life can too easily lack the element of specificity necessary to a lively Christian witness.

Jubilee of Families, Children, Grandparents and the Elderly

 The days 30th May to 1st June are to be celebrated as a Jubilee of Families, Children, Grandparents and the Elderly.  Some 60 000 pilgrims are expected in Rome for this event, and the report here indicates the participation of ecclesial movements who will have their own Jubilee celebration at the Pentecost weekend.

In the title of this celebration, and in its programme of events, we can recognise the themes of a series of General Audience addresses given by Pope Francis, starting on 17th December 2014 and extending to 18th November 2015 (see here). We can also recognise a section "Life in the wider family" from his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (nn.187 - 198). In these sources Pope Francis frequently addresses experiences of family life from a very practical and every day point of view. All of this needs to be read with Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage in mind; that is, marriage understood as the lifelong, exclusive commitment of one man and one woman, that is ordered towards their own good, and that is open to the transmission of new life (cf Catechism of the Catholic Church nn.1601 ff).

We might exemplify Pope Francis' approach by reminding ourselves of the "three expressions", of which he spoke in his Audience address of 13th May 2015:

Today’s catechesis will serve as a doorway to a series of reflections on family life and what it’s really like to live in a family, day in and day out. Imagine three expressions written above the doorway; expressions I’ve already mentioned here in St Peter’s Square several times before. The expressions are: “may I?”, “thank you”, and “pardon me”. Indeed, these expressions open up the way to living well in your family, to living in peace. They are simple expressions, but not so simple to put into practice! They hold much power: the power to keep home life intact even when tested with a thousand problems. But if they are absent, little holes can start to crack open and the whole thing may even collapse. ...

... the first expression is, “may I?” When we take care to ask for something kindly — even something we think we have a rightful claim to — we help to strengthen the common life that undergirds marriage and the family. Entering into the life of another, even when that person already has a part to play in our life, demands the sensitivity of a non-invasive attitude which renews trust and respect. Indeed, the deeper and more intimate love is, the more it calls for respect for the other’s freedom and the ability to wait until the other open’s the door to his or her heart. ...

The second expression is “thank you”. ... We must become firmly determined to educate others to be grateful and appreciative: the dignity of the person and social justice must both pass through the portal of the family. If family life neglects this style of living, social life will also reject it.  

 The third expression is “pardon me”. Granted, it’s not always easy to say, but it is so necessary. Whenever it is lacking, the little cracks begin to open up — even when we don’t want them to — and they can even become enormous sinkholes. It’s hardly insignificant that in the “Our Father” that Jesus teaches us — a prayer that sums up all of life’s essential questions — we find this expression: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” (Matt 6:16). To acknowledge that we have fallen short, to be desirous of returning that which has been taken away — respect, sincerity, love — these make us worthy of pardon. This is how we heal the infection. If we are not able to forgive ourselves, then we are no longer able to forgive period. A house in which the words “I’m sorry” are never uttered begins to lack air, and the flood waters begin to choke those who live inside.

In his Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year, as well as indicating that grandparents and the elderly should be offered signs of hope, Pope Francis also wrote (n.9) that " Looking to the future with hope also entails having enthusiasm for life and a readiness to share it":

Openness to life and responsible parenthood is the design that the Creator has implanted in the hearts and bodies of men and women, a mission that the Lord has entrusted to spouses and to their love. It is urgent that responsible legislation on the part of states be accompanied by the firm support of communities of believers and the entire civil community in all its components. For the desire of young people to give birth to new sons and daughters as a sign of the fruitfulness of their love ensures a future for every society. This is a matter of hope: it is born of hope and it generates hope.

Somewhat coincidentally, the Ecumenical Prize at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival has been awarded to a French language film Young Mothers (Jeune Meres). The statement at SIGNIS website explaining the reasons for the award is here, and this is the page for the film at Cannes. The interview with the directors and the trailer (in French) are worth reading. The film also won the award for Best Screenplay in the main competition at the festival. (The English titling of the film appears to be "Young Mothers Home".)

The film centers on teenage mothers living in a dedicated [mother's home], exploring their struggles and resilience in challenging circumstances. True to the Dardenne brothers’ signature style, Young Mothers finds its ethical foundation not through grand dramatic gestures but in quiet, persistent acts of care and compassion. 

The film appears to present, in a very specific context, the "matter of hope" to which Pope Francis referred in the Bull of Indiction. 

Jubilee of the World of Communications (2)

Federation des Medias Catholiques is a member organisation, based in France, of the World Catholic Association for Communications SIGNIS. Towards the end of January each year it organises an Encounter for media professionals Les Journees de St Francois de Sales, named for the patron saint of journalists whose feast day is 24th January. This year the Encounter is being held in Rome and coincides with the Jubilee of the World of Communications.

The overarching theme of the 28th Encounter is "Catholic Media: What identity for what mission?" The titles of the three main plenary sessions of the Encounter address this theme as follows, with the speakers at each session drawn mainly, but not exclusively, from French language Catholic media organisations: 

Plenary 1: Information, formation or evangelisation: what is the mission of Catholic media?

What is the raison d'etre of our Catholic media? Have we as an object to take part in the missionary mandate for evangelising the public: Or do we exist to take part in the formation of Christian readers, to help them grow in the faith?  Or do our media take part in general information, bringing a Christian reading of events, particularly in these times when crises succeed crises? Or are our media all of these at once?

Plenary 2: Does Catholic media have a future?

In a world that appears always more de-Christianised, in the West at least, is there still a place for Catholic media? Do the public still have an interest for our titles, be that for a Christian vision or even to live a daily life of Christian prayer? If we are celebrating now the Jubilee 2025, will we still be here for the Jubilee 2050?

Plenary 3: Is the Catholic media an intermediary for the magisterium like other media?

Our media have an altogether particular positioning, between an editorial line and journalistic demand on the one part, and following the Catholic faith on the other part. How can and must our media situate themselves vis a vis developments of the magisterium? Are we there to relay them, to accompany them or to question them?

The Encounter is also animating an event within the main programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications, with a session entitled "How can Catholic media be peace makers?". The sister of Pere Hamel (see below) will take part in this session.

On the occasion of the Jubilee, the Holy Father encourages us to be "pilgrims of hope".  What does that mean for us, professionals in Catholic media? Have our media a particular responsibility to communicate this hope, in being voices for peace in a world where conflicts, "the Third World War being fought piecemeal", appears sadly to spread and never to end?

 A final noteworthy feature of the Encounter will be the presentation of the Prix Pere Jacques Hamel. Pere Hamel was killed whilst celebrating Mass in his church in July 2016, and afterwards the Federation des Medias Catholiques, along with the family of Pere Hamel and the Archbishop of Rouen, established this prize. It is awarded for a media contribution that favours the promotion of peace and of  inter-religious dialogue. The prize will be presented during the Encounter by the French ambassador to the Holy See.

[The full programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications is here, and notably opens with the celebration of Mass for the feast of St Francis de Sales.]

Jubilee of the World of Communications (1)

 The period 24-26 January has been identified as a particular celebration of the Jubilee 2025 for the World of Communications.

One organisation in the field of communication that I have followed is the World Catholic Association for Communication: SIGNIS, taking particular notice of their work in the field of cinema. Their mission is described on their own website and is indicated in the Directory of Associations on the website of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life. It is a world wide association made up of member associations in the different nations and regions of the world. The two predecessor organisations that merged in 2001 to form SIGNIS had their origins as far back as 1928, one being an organisation dedicated to cinema and the other an organsation dedicated to radio.

Bringing together Catholics already working as professionals in the media was the objective that kept together those organisations. The interest of Catholics in the new media was understandable. They saw the opportunities offered by them to present their views and opinions on life and the world and so they naturally became involved in promoting education and values.

The aspect of the work of SIGNIS that I find most interesting is their organising of SIGNIS, Ecumenical and inter-faith juries at film festivals. This includes juries at well known film festivals such as that held in Cannes each year, as well as juries at more specialised festivals. This participation at the major events of the world of cinema by Catholic film professionals strikes me as being a particularly good expression of a specifically lay engagement. It involves an encounter between religious faith and a professional context which can only really be achieved by the action of those who are themselves professionals in the relevant context. In return, it also indicates a respect given by the wider world of cinema to those of religious faith who are able to engage with them in way that is professionally competent.

At the most recent Cannes film festival, the Ecumenical Jury gave its award to the film The Seed of the Sacred Fig. The film, and the background to its production, are described at a Wikipedia page here. If you read down the page you will find an explanation of the film's title and of the two photographs that the director displayed on the red carpet and at other photo calls during the Cannes festival. 

Following a special prize to Wim Wenders on the 50th anniversary of the Ecumenical Jury, the 6 international members of this year’s jury gave their prize to the Iranian director Mohammad Rasoulof, with this motivation : “When religion is associated with political power and patriarchy, it can destroy the most intimate relationships and the dignity of individuals, as this Iranian family drama embodies. The jury was impressed by the film’s rich symbolism, its generous and hopeful ending, its touches of humour and its heartbreaking tension. The subtlety and sobriety of its writing, both dramatic and filmic, makes it a metaphor for any authoritarian theocracy”.

Film Review: Still Alice

Still Alice is a film based on a novel of the same title by Lisa Genova. According to her Amazon page:

Lisa Genova is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Still Alice, Left Neglected, Love Anthony, and Inside the O'Briens. Lisa graduated valedictorian from Bates College with a degree in biopsychology and holds a PhD in neuroscience from Harvard University. She travels worldwide speaking about Alzheimer's Disease, traumatic brain injury, and autism. She lives with her family in Massachusetts.

At least from the professional point of view, the book and subsequently the film, seem to have an element of autobiography. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the novel, so cannot really consider the film in the light of the book.

If you haven't seen the film yet, beware - the review that follows includes some key plot spoilers.

When Zero and I saw it yesterday, representatives of the film makers were asking viewers of the film to fill out response questionnaires after the film. I do not know if this is a common practice, but it is the first time I have encountered it. So far as I could tell, the response rate was very high, and cinema goers seemed to be taking considerable care over their responses. The film review at SIGNIS captures something of the kind of sense as you see this film (and I do think it is a film to see at the cinema rather than at home):

It was extraordinary the silence in the cinema as people, we together, watched Still Alice. What were we thinking, what were we feeling? Were we identifying with Alice personally, the early onset of Alzheimer’s disease, the fact that she was only 50, that she was a world-class academic and expert on linguistics and was suffering deterioration in her deepest talent? Were we thinking about relatives or friends with Alzheimer’s, trying to appreciate the condition, their feelings? Had we had some experience of care for a person with Alzheimer’s or was this a prospect to come? Watching the film was certainly a personal, sad, even draining experience.   

There is an aspect of the experience of Alzheimer's shown in the film that it is easy to miss. The experience being portrayed is not that of someone now in their 80's or 90's, whose early life memories would reach back to the 1930's and 1940's, when the lap top computer would have been beyond imagination. Instead, it is the experience of someone who has been young in our own lifetimes, an experience likely to be ours of the future, rather than the experience of the older generation of today. It would be interesting, too, to reflect on whether a similar film made in an attempt to portray the experience of a man would show a significantly different experience. I suspect that it might.

I may have missed them, but I was struck by the way in which the film did not seem to portray the strategies that a family or friends might use when living with and helping to support an Alzheimer's sufferer.

In focussing on the figure of Alice, one can lose sight of the experience of family members and professional colleagues that is shown in the film. A scene where Alice's department head reads the negative feedback from students who have been attending her lectures, and only then learns of her Alzheimer's, though the students have been adversely affected by it for all of the preceding semester, is telling in this regard. The impact on family members is portrayed at different points throughout the film, though it is useful to consciously notice it rather than just seeing it as part of the narrative of Alice's experience. At the level of the acting performances, a similar comment can be made. Julianne Moore's Oscar winning performance as Alice is framed by outstanding performances from Kristen Steward, Alex Baldwin and Kate Bosworth.

Still Alice is full of moving moments. The scene where Alice and John tell their children that Alice has Alzheimer's, and that it is a hereditary form comes first. Both within the narrative of the film and in the mind of the viewer, it is a scene that asks the question: how do we cope with looking forward to possibly struggling with Alzheimer's later in our lives? This foreknowledge is perhaps part of the experience of our generation in a way that was not true for earlier generations.

A second key scene is where Alice speaks to a conference of Alzheimer's care givers. The speech in this section of the film represents a kind of manifesto in favour of those who struggle with Alzheimer's - "struggle" being the word chosen rather than "suffer". Part of that speech features in the end of the trailer that can be found embedded in the Telegraph online review. I was particularly struck by Alice's choice to talk about struggling with slowly losing everything that had previously been part of her life and of her connection to life around her (this is why I think this is a film to see with others in a cinema rather than in isolation on a small screen).

Next is the scene where Alice's daughter asks her to describe what it feels like and Alice, in a moment of lucidity, does so.

And the final scene where, after her daughter has read to her a long passage, Alice responds to the daughter's asking that "It's about love" (it wasn't). Since this comes after the daughter has returned home to care for her mother, it is very poignant.

Without giving an answer either way, the film asks whether it would be better for someone to die rather than struggle with Alzheimer's. At a relatively early point in the film, Alice says to her husband that she would rather have cancer than Alzheimer's, with the husband replying "Don't say that". Alice also records a movie on her laptop giving instructions about how to take an overdose once she has reached the point where she cannot remember her family. In an intensely dramatic moment, she later accidentally opens this movie and starts to follow its instructions (her memory is so impaired that she has to take the laptop upstairs to the bedroom cabinet in order to follow the instructions one at a time). The arrival of her carer at the last minute saves Alice's life. And shortly before the end of the film, Alice is asked by her husband in an ice cream parlour whether or not she still wants to be here. At this point, Alice can only understand the question in terms of the ice cream parlour, and the fact that she has not yet finished her ice cream - very sad but also very informative of the possibility of consent to assisted suicide at that point in the disease.

It is a film to see, but do take tissues.

Paris, Francis, Dave, NIck and Eric - a retrospective for Charlie

With the passage of time since the events in Paris, and the on-going discussion in the news media and among political leaders, it has become possible to ask more searching questions about the extent to which the right to freedom of expression extends.

I think, for example, that to see the overwhelming response of the French people (and others) in the huge march through Paris and in other gatherings throughout the country, as being in support of freedom of expression understood as the freedom to give offence may be an oversimplification. There was a moving account in the BBC Radio 4 coverage of the march of a Muslim family who had brought along buckets and buckets of white roses (one suspects they ran a florists shop!) to give out to those they met at the march; and of the Jewish marcher who, receiving a flower, then embraced the family as "selfies" were taken. What were their motivations? Anxiety about the freedom of Charlie Hebdo to give offence or an anxiety for friendship with their neighbour? I suspect that an intuition in favour of reconciliation played a part for many; and an intuition in favour of a freedom in the face of, not so much terrorism, as a style of totalitarianism that Islamist terrorism represents.

The statement issued by SIGNIS, the World Catholic Association for Communication, articulated a motivation in favour of freedom as it condemned the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, and placed that attack against a wider background:

As communicators we reaffirm our commitment to work for a culture of peace which respects the life and dignity of everyone. We also reiterate our support for the fundamental principle of freedom of expression and for all those journalists around the world who face the threat of death or injury in carrying out their profession.

We call on all people of good will to join together to help build a world where those of all cultures and faiths may live and work together in peace.

Pope Francis was perhaps in a unique position among world leaders to be able to  draw attention to the limits that should apply to freedom of expression. His "punch" was very widely reported. In summary, though the law might not proscribe actions that are gratuitously and cynically offensive, and that as a matter of prudence in the protection of the right of freedom of expression, nevertheless those who publish materials or speak have a responsibility to conduct themselves with a respect towards the beliefs of others. Blog-by-the-Sea captures much of this: Free Speech and Respect for Diverse Religious Beliefs (and follow her first link to a Yahoo News livestream of how news organisations have reacted after the Paris attacks).

I don't think Nick Clegg and David Cameron have really understood the issue involved. I heard the former on Radio 4 speak in terms of a "right to give offence"; and more recently the latter has spoken on American TV of a "right to cause offence about someone's religion" in a free society, and that in such a society we have to accept that "newspapers, magazines can publish materials that are offensive to some, so long as it is within the law". Their far too ready assimilation of the right to freedom of expression to a right to give offense is unhelpful to say the least. Equally unhelpful is the unstated presumption that it is the law of the land that defines the boundaries of the rights accruing to the human person.

[See also Catholic Voices reply to some of the UK news media coverage of David Cameron's remarks, and of Pope Francis' original words as mediated by that coverage: David Cameron's missed opportunity to agree with Pope Francis.]

Eric Pickles letter to Muslim leaders has received criticism. It strikes me as being somewhat patronising - and arrogant at the same time. "British values are Muslim values".... err, no, if British values include the right to give religious offense as propounded by the leaders of our coalition government. The letter clearly shows a lack of appreciation of how a religious faith will view its relationship to wider society and to the instruments of state.

What I think Nick, Dave and Eric need to give far more thought to is exactly how the relationship between religion and a free society is to be articulated, be that at the level of the individual religious believer who might be "radicalised" (their term, not mine) or at the level of religious communities as a whole. And so far, I don't think they have even recognised the question.

SIGNIS - an international public association of the faithful

I noticed a month or so ago, in passing, the recognition by the Pontifical Council for the Laity of the organisation SIGNIS as an international public association of the faithful. A report on SIGNIS website is here.

This recognition does have points of interest. First of all, the organisation that is now known as SIGNIS - "World Catholic Association for Communication" has a long history in two predecessor organisations, one dedicated to the field of radio and television and the other to the field of cinema - see here. The organisation therefore has a background of a genuinely lay engagement of Catholic professionals in these fields of communication, that is, an engagement arising from the professionals themselves and not by delegation from the hierarchy. In the present times of the Church that is something that might be taken for granted, but I suspect that in the early days of the two founder organisations this was something quite novel. [Corrections will be gratefully received in the com box if anyone knows otherwise with regard to the history of these organisations.] The objects of SIGNIS, which are included in their newly approved statutes, are here. The move towards recognition as a public association of the faithful, with an Ecclesiastical Assistant appointed by the Pontifical Council for the Laity, represents an assurance of ecclesial communion alongside the principle of a rightly autonomy of lay expertise in fields that more than many other do require a specialist expertise.

A second point is the way in which SIGNIS contributes to the professional development of Catholics (and others) in the field of cinema, radio and television. This is of particular significance in less developed countries, where funding and technology will be less available. So, for example, SIGNIS trains colleagues to take part in festival juries.

A third point of interest is the strongly ecumenical dimension to SIGNIS work, both in practice and as expressed in its Statutes. One of the most prestigious aspects of SIGNIS work is its presence at major film festivals throughout the world, through a jury that will evaluate films from a Christian perspective (see here). Not infrequently, the juries involved are ecumenical juries - which not only enables a wider Christian dimension but also allows access to a wider range of professional expertise. It is the kind of field in which ecumenical collaboration is almost natural. The presence of these juries - some of them reaching back a long way in the history of the relevant film festival - is, so far as I can tell, accepted readily by festival organisers. It thereby facilitates a dialogue between Christians and their fellow professionals, the presence of Christians in the field being welcomed.

A particular aspect of SIGNIS work that I have found helpful for some time now has been their publication of reviews of, or statements about, recently released films (see here, and the links to recent reviews on this page). Topical at the moment might be their statement on Exodus: Gods and Kings.

Film Review: Calvary

Zero and I saw this film recently, and herewith my thoughts on it.

SIGNIS (the World Catholic Association for Communication) reviewed the film favourably -  Calvary - and it will be worthwhile to read their review before your continue reading my post.

An aspect of the film that the SIGNIS review does not address is that of the sense in which it is a humorous film. The online review from the Independent, for example, has a heading that refers to the film as a "dark religious comedy"; other reviews have likened its humour to the "dark humour" of an earlier film by the same director, The Guard, a film that I have not seen. Zero and I saw the film in a cinema with somewhere around 50 people. My estimate is that just a quarter of those, at most, laughed at some point during the film; and I was not convinced that the points at which they laughed reflected any credit on them for laughing.

Much of the humour lay in portrayals of a priest being confronted, deliberately and facetiously, with the wrongdoing of the person in front of him. So, for example, in the scene with the portrait described in the Independent review, the film maker seems to have delighted in actually showing the "local squire" (to use the terms of the review) relieving himself over the painting as the camera shot at the same time showed the priest. Whilst there is in this section of the film a deeper reflection to be made about the nature of wealth (see below), nevertheless its portrayal in a manner that represents deliberate affront to the priest typifies the calibre of the humour in the film.

I can see that a film maker might not have a high regard for the priesthood and the Catholic Church and that the situation of both in Ireland provides a particular context for that. It makes sense that such a film maker might portray in his work that lack of regard. That is one thing. The really fundamental question I have with regard to Calvary, though, is: can this lack of regard be justly represented in the form of humour just described? Is it really legitimate for the film maker to expect people in cinemas to laugh at it? Does it in fact represent an affront, not to the priest as priest, but to the priest as a human person like any other, and therefore also an affront to the cinema goer who is expected to find it funny?

A particular scene that has prompted my sense of objection in this regard is that where, as the priest visits an accident victim in hospital to administer the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (referred to in the film as the "last rites"), he is confronted by the atheistic doctor. My own experience of the medical profession is that they are very respectful of the role of chaplains in hospitals; and, as Zero pointed out, what is portrayed in this scene certainly would not happen in Ireland, let alone any other country. This scene struck me as being particularly gratuitous.

If you have seen the film yourself, you will realise at this point that I rather lost the plot - perhaps literally! Within the plot line of the film, all these affronts to the parish priest are intended to create the possibility in the mind of the cinema goer that just about every other resident of the parish is a possibility for the would be assassin. I was too busy thinking about the issues above to notice the plot.

There is some comparison between Calvary and George Bernanos' Diary of a Country Priest. The visit of the parish priest to the house of the local "squire", and its dialogue, has its parallel's in the Cure's visit to the Comtesse in Bernanos' novel. But I thought that the Bernanos was far superior in its human and religious insight. The visits of the priest to his bishop, too, has a very loose parallel to the encounters between the Cure and his mentor. And the whisky and beer of the priests drinking session parallel the wine of the Cure. Perhaps both film and book portray the encounter between good and evil in the concrete, everyday life of a priest -  the film however exaggerating the latter to the point of the grotesque. The comparison really is very limited.

The film has a definitely Irish character. The willingness of the parish priest to intervene in the marital (and love) affairs of his flock reflects a controlling aspect of Catholic culture in Ireland. There are references to the sinful nature of the economic exploitation of the "tiger economy" and the excessive wealth and economic collapse that followed it. This motif recurs in the film. The parish priest also displays a somewhat acerbic pacifism in a scene in which he opposes a young man's expressed wish to join the army. The way in which an innocent meeting with a young visitor on a country lane is so readily interpreted as abusive - and the sadness and anguish of the parish priest's facial expression as he realises this implication - manifests something of the experience of priests in the wake of abuse scandals.

The SIGNIS review considers the film to be one of the most sympathetic portrayals of the priesthood in recent cinema. In some ways this is true - the parish priest is the "hero" of the film. But what of the assistant priest? He is portrayed as being a little loose with the seal of the confessional; as being decidedly obsequious and mercenary at the possibility of a donation to the parish, in (stereo)typical Irish fashion; and his most memorable facial expression seems to be a sneer. Perhaps he is the foil to the parish priest's "hero" - but his character does not leave a good impression.

At the denouement, the parish priest is shot dead on the beach. The graphic portrayal of blood and brains emerging from the back of his head - shown twice, from two different directions - and splaying across the sand represented, for me at least, a final affront (to the priest? or to the cinema goer?). And since affront appears to be of the essence of the style of humour in the film, is the cinema goer not meant to see in it the darkest of dark humour? If the scene is not understood in this way, it becomes supremely gratuitous in its violence. It is an ending that left a sense of shock in the cinema, with people not knowing quite how to react.

A final thought, that is left unresolved in the closing sequence of the film. In this sequence, all the characters who the parish priest has encountered - and some of whom he was due to meet after his appointment on the beach - are shown one after the other. Have they all been abandoned by the parish priest in his death, or have all their cares been borne by him "to the end" in a sacrificial death?