Spotlight

fisgon

Surprised this film hasn't been mentioned here yet, (maybe it has and I missed it).

It is about the Boston Church abuse scandal, and the investigation that the Boston Globe newspaper ran on it. The story is familiar, we all know how it goes, it was exactly the same here.

What is extraordinary about it is the unbelievable power of the Church in Boston, even in 2001. Power to make court documents go missing, hush people up, it was like a mini Ireland. In fact, it is all so similar it is really hard to see how it could have been coincidental, the thousands of children abused in the same way, cover ups following the exact same pattern.

It has been nominated for an Oscar, though the Revenant is sure to win it does give it some publicity. Worth a watch, and does expose how everyone let it happen, even the press, who eventually got around to exposing it. A story of a kind of heroism among journalists, who kept going despite all the pressure on them to desist.

One eyed Jack

robindch mentioned it about a month back in the ongoing religious scandals thread alright -

robindch wrote: »

Spotlight, a film about the Boston's Globe's investigation of pedophile priests in Boston, is due out on January 29th:

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/spotlight-exclusive-exposing-a-cover-up-by-the-catholic-church-1.2487079

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56jw6tasomc

I don't go to the cinema much myself anyway, and I don't really feel compelled to go see this film either tbh. It's hyped up hugely because of the subject matter it deals with, so I think I'll wait for the DVD release.

eviltwin

It's a good film, a difficult film to watch in parts. I was feeling very angry for days after it. The worst bit for me was right at the very end where a list of places where clerical sex abuse was uncovered was listed and the amount of entries for Ireland really reminds you how big an issue it was here. It's a shocking story but not so shocking because it's so common.

Trent Houseboat

It's a good film. Mark Ruffalo is excellent as usual.
In the event that Mad Max doesn't claim best picture, I'd be happy for Spotlight to win the oscar.

There was someone in After Hours last week claiming that it was an assault on the Catholic Church by Jewish Hollywood.
Classic.

Cabaal

Good film, what interested me though was the

15% of priests abused comment, thats scary and I'm curious how many that equals when you apply it to Ireland!

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Good film, what interested me though was the [....]

Is that figure worldwide? And any idea how they came up with it?

I recall a spat some years ago with a now-departed poster named ISAW in the ongoing scandals thread - ISAW took unhappy exception to an estimate of 10% which I'd made from a range of publicly-available sources.

fisgon

robindch wrote: »

Is that figure worldwide? And any idea how they came up with it?

I recall a spat some years ago with a now-departed poster named ISAW in the ongoing scandals thread - ISAW took unhappy exception to an estimate of 10% which I'd made from a range of publicly-available sources.

I think it is impossible to reach a reliable figure. First of all think of all the cases that are still being hushed up in the developing world, there is a whole sh1tstorm that hasn´t emerged yet in Africa and South America, and may well never come out. Even here and in the States there are lots of cases of priests who have died and have allegations against them, some of which may be real, some not.

In the film the psychotherapist mentioned a figure of 6%, which astonished the journalists at the time, but which actually turned out to be low, in the Boston case. What is sure is that anywhere that has a large Irish Catholic influence in the world shows an elevated level of priestly abuse. It seems to have been one of our more odious exports.

(It would be interesting to ask why this is. Spain and Portugal were basically Catholic dictatorships in the mid-decades of the last century, and while there have been some scandals there, there has been nothing on the scale of our horror, or the nightmare in the US. And this is not because of some Church control of the press in those two countries, there is a much stronger anti-clerical element in Iberia to pull the church up on crimes if they existed. You would have to assume that the problem wasn't nearly as bad there.)

looksee

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Is that figure worldwide? And any idea how they came up with it?

I recall a spat some years ago with a now-departed poster named ISAW in the ongoing scandals thread - ISAW took unhappy exception to an estimate of 10% which I'd made from a range of publicly-available sources.

I'll have to rewatch the scene but I might be wrong about the percentage, but in the movie it basically meant that what they thought was a hand full of priests abusing ended up been many times more!

I believe the starting number was around 12 but it ended up so much higher https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/06/least-clergy-have-been-accused-child-sex-abuse-boston-archdiocese/5cKpjVOPhEh7IYnCwRqIJI/story.html

At least 271 clergy — a mix of permanent and visiting priests, pastors, chaplains, deacons, religious order clerics, and nuns — have been publicly accused of child sex abuse in the Boston archdiocese, according to a Globe review.

robindch

fisgon wrote: »

It would be interesting to ask why this is.

It's a fascinating question - when I looked at it a few years back, the figures suggest a high rate of offending, but it's not easy to reconcile the information available from publicly-available sources to come up with a figure that one can have a high degree of confidence in.

The offending rates varied by country, by age of graduation of the priest (oddly, and quite sharply) and some other variables. The only figures that seemed reliable and consistent in anyway order-of-magnitude sense was that reports/convictions of abuse were perhaps three times more likely to involve young boys than young girls, and that somewhere between 5 and 15% of priests had plausible allegations made against them.

In any case, with that likely rate of offending, claims that the phenomenon was generally unknown amongst religious leaders or society more generally, are really quite implausible.

recedite

looksee wrote: »

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

That is certainly the case in Africa, and the general population are generally intolerant of homosexuality and paedophilia, which is why the main form of clerical abuse emerging from that continent so far seems to involve priests and post-pubescent teenage girls.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

Ireland was lucky enough to inherit two toxic legacies - Victorian prudery and ultramontane catholicism.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ireland was lucky enough to inherit two toxic legacies - Victorian prudery and ultramontane catholicism.

We didn't inherit them, we were quite happy to go along with both regimes while it suited us. At the same time as Victoria ruled, we had one of the largest red light districts in Europe! Do you honestly imagine that Irish society were historically oblivious, ignorant spud munchers?

Society knew well what was going on with the abuses in the Church, and fostered it, encouraged it, and made it easy for themselves to be controlled while they played moral "keeping up with the Jones", pretending we were "holier than thou". The Church didn't have any power that the people didn't give it, but the fact is they did give it, and gave it willingly.

fisgon

looksee wrote: »

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

Not in Spain and Portugal, no. Definitely not during the Franco and Salazar dictatorships.

I do think that what Hotblack said played a part, we developed a twisted mix of British Victorian repression, and Catholic obsession about sex, that just fcuked people up big-time, priests and lay people.

Just how sick Irish Catholicism was and is can be seen by the plethora of Irish names in the list of abusing priests all around the world. It is still difficult to fully explain.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We didn't inherit them,

Cue 'Holy Grail' 'we didn't vote for them' scene.

At the same time as Victoria ruled, we had one of the largest red light districts in Europe!

And? Lots of poor people desperate for money and lots of British soldiers with leave pay in their pockets looking for a ride.

Society knew well what was going on with the abuses in the Church, and fostered it, encouraged it, and made it easy for themselves to be controlled while they played moral "keeping up with the Jones", pretending we were "holier than thou".

Speak for yourself.

The Church didn't have any power that the people didn't give it, but the fact is they did give it, and gave it willingly.

Inducted at birth, brainwashed from infancy, threatened with ostracism and financial ruin in this life and a supposed eternal punishment after that, and you call that 'willingly' ?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Cue 'Holy Grail' 'we didn't vote for them' scene.

I haven't seen it, but yes, we did fight for it with Catholic Emancipation.

And? Lots of poor people desperate for money and lots of British soldiers with leave pay in their pockets looking for a ride.

And your point about Victorian morality is a myth.

Speak for yourself.

No, I was speaking of society at the time.

Inducted at birth, brainwashed from infancy, threatened with ostracism and financial ruin in this life and a supposed eternal punishment after that, and you call that 'willingly' ?

Yes I do, because most people in society at the time played their part in contributing to the farce, willingly. They weren't brainwashed, they chose to behave the way they did, in exactly the same way as people do now in choosing to have their children baptised even though they know it's a farce.

Canadel

It should be shown in secondary schools as part of the leaving cert curriculum.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't seen it, but yes, we did fight for it with Catholic Emancipation.

'We' again. Most people in the 19th century in Ireland were worried about feeding their family not politics.

Catholic emancipation was not supposed to be about the RC church effectively usurping many of the functions of the state. That was quite simply a power grab.

And your point about Victorian morality is a myth.

The poor through necessity did not feel bound by the same values, but they were condemned by 'respectable' people because of this, and being poor was in itself grounds for moral condemnation, e.g. the workhouses.

They weren't brainwashed, they chose to behave the way they did, in exactly the same way as people do now in choosing to have their children baptised even though they know it's a farce.

Yes it is a farce, but there are no strong societal penalties today for non-compliance with RC doctrines. It is not comparable at all.

pH

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I really didn't like the film. I found it dull and pedestrian, and thought it didn't work as either a piece of entertainment or as an expose.

The characters were pretty dull, the few scenes where the "powers that be" tried to influence the investigation seemed confusing and half-hearted, and the central investigative tool the journalists used - the parish lists and the codes was no where near as clever nor as damning as the film-makers would like us to believe.

But my main concern with the whole thing, is as I've said many times before - if a crime is committed then report it to the police - If you're dumb enough to report crimes to the people committing the crimes, well then I guess you can expect what comes next.

This seems to be what was happening in Boston - except, and it's a huge exception, the opening scene of the movie, which clearly showed the police involved and somehow the crime being quashed.

Now if that happened, heads should certainly roll, but is there any evidence that Geoghan actually was in police custody and was released by a corrupt DA? There's certainly no mention of it on wikipedia, just many occurrences of crimes being reported to the Catholic church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan

Penn

pH wrote: »

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I really didn't like the film. I found it dull and pedestrian, and thought it didn't work as either a piece of entertainment or as an expose.

The characters were pretty dull, the few scenes where the "powers that be" tried to influence the investigation seemed confusing and half-hearted, and the central investigative tool the journalists used - the parish lists and the codes was no where near as clever nor as damning as the film-makers would like us to believe.

That's actually one of the positives of the film for me and is something the film has been commended for. It doesn't try to portray the journalists as heroes. It doesn't sensationalise what they did, or try and "Hollywood" it up. It doesn't make the Church out to be some sort of Dan Brown-esque secret cult moving in the shadows, because they weren't.

The film doesn't do all these things because it doesn't need to, and shouldn't need to. The story itself is as true to the source material as possible. The whole process wasn't exciting. But it was important. The Church kept what they were doing as hidden as they could, but they were still fairly blatant about it. The pieces were there, it was just no-one wanted to put them together.

pH wrote: »

But my main concern with the whole thing, is as I've said many times before - if a crime is committed then report it to the police - If you're dumb enough to report crimes to the people committing the crimes, well then I guess you can expect what comes next.

This seems to be what was happening in Boston - except, and it's a huge exception, the opening scene of the movie, which clearly showed the police involved and somehow the crime being quashed.

One of the main cruxes of the film was that the lawyers who were generally assigned to those cases against the Church directed their clients to settle with the Church in private. So in many cases, it wasn't that the victims went to the Church to complain, but that the police and lawyers helped to keep whatever complaints were made within the Church's control and off the books.

pinkypinky

Cabaal wrote: »

I'll have to rewatch the scene but I might be wrong about the percentage, but in the movie it basically meant that what they thought was a hand full of priests abusing ended up been many times more!

I believe the starting number was around 12 but it ended up so much higher https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/06/least-clergy-have-been-accused-child-sex-abuse-boston-archdiocese/5cKpjVOPhEh7IYnCwRqIJI/story.html

I think it was 12 priests they had found and then the guy who'd done the research (tangent, why was he only ever on the phone?) said that sounded low out of the 1500 priests in the Boston diocese and that 6% was his best analysis, which they worked out as 90 priest, and they ultimately found 87, so his research was spot-on.

Penn

pinkypinky wrote: »

I think it was 12 priests they had found and then the guy who'd done the research (tangent, why was he only ever on the phone?) said that sounded low out of the 1500 priests in the Boston diocese and that 6% was his best analysis, which they worked out as 90 priest, and they ultimately found 87, so his research was spot-on.

Yeah, I think it went from 1 priest to 4, to 13, to 87, then being able to prove 70. After the story was published and more victims came forward, that's when it turned out the number was likely over 250.

I think the analyst's figure of 6% was accurate, but that it was because priests were constantly being moved around that the accusations against priests in the Boston area ended up so much higher. The bad priests being replaced by other bad priests etc.

biko

Aye, saw it tonight. Was good.

PopePalpatine

I saw it last night. Don't treat this as some sort of thriller, treat it as more of a docu-drama.

Don't expect any big confrontations, either, unless that scene towards the end of the movie of the meeting between one of the journalists and someone on the RCC's side in the latter's house.

I'd give it a 9/10.

pauldla

Now the winner of the Best Picture award in this years Oscars, it seems.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Wasn't there another film made about this, probably late 90's early 2000's? trying to think of the name and im coming up blank.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Wasn't there another film made about this, probably late 90's early 2000's? trying to think of the name and im coming up blank.

There's been a couple about abuse in the US (Doubt, Deliver Us From Evil documentary) but the one you're probably thinking of is Our Fathers, a TV film about the Boston archdiocese.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

it could have been Doubt, but i'm not sure.... I'll have to watch it again

lazygal

Doubt is based on a stage play and is more about inferences of abuse having taken place.

frostyjacks

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

I heard there's a lotion that could help with your problem.

bnt

frostyjacks wrote: »

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

In the trade, that's known as "the whataboutism". :rolleyes:

frostyjacks

bnt wrote: »

In the trade, that's known as "the whataboutism". :rolleyes:

It's the hypocrisy that is annoying, more than the Church-bashing. The same people who celebrate this film gave an award and a standing ovation to Roman Polanski not very long ago.

Roman Polanski raped a little girl, and is idolised by Hollywood. Go figure.

pauldla

If 'bashing' is defined as 'a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group, or subject', I'd be interested to know what aspects of the film you consider to be harsh, gratuitous and/or prejudicial.

frostyjacks

pauldla wrote: »

If 'bashing' is defined as 'a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group, or subject', I'd be interested to know what aspects of the film you consider to be harsh, gratuitous and/or prejudicial.

They claim celibacy is the issue, that it creates a culture of secrecy. Plus the Boston Globe turns a blind eye to child abuse in other institutions.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dave-pierre/2015/11/22/boston-globes-spotlight-sex-abuse-shows-hypocrisy

Links234

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's the hypocrisy that is annoying, more than the Church-bashing. The same people who celebrate this film gave an award and a standing ovation to Roman Polanski not very long ago.

Roman Polanski raped a little girl, and is idolised by Hollywood. Go figure.

Therefore they should have no problem with institutional child rape in the Catholic church, is that what you're saying?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

They claim celibacy is the issue, that it creates a culture of secrecy. Plus the Boston Globe turns a blind eye to child abuse in other institutions.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dave-pierre/2015/11/22/boston-globes-spotlight-sex-abuse-shows-hypocrisy

Liberal media bias?!

frostyjacks

Links234 wrote: »

Therefore they should have no problem with institutional child rape in the Catholic church, is that what you're saying?

No. By hypocrisy I mean they make big budget films on abuse in the Catholic Church, but are quite happy with other people abusing children. It's an odd state of affairs.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. By hypocrisy I mean they make big budget films on abuse in the Catholic Church, but are quite happy with other people abusing children. It's an odd state of affairs.

You're labeling all of Hollywood as the same, when clearly it is not. Sure they are idiots that will come to defense but there are countless others who will not. Hollywood is also not a organization with a leader like the Catholic church, so you're not comparing like with like.

We however can label the Catholic church as the abuse because all the high up's knew of abuse and helped cover it up, they even created some handy guidelines the parishes could use.

Roman Polanski will be arrested if he ever sets foot in the USA,
Hell he has a interpol red flag against him so he'll be arrested if he travels to numerous countrys in the world.

While all the time sex abusing priests and bishops that covered up abuse are welcome in the Vatican, even with the Vatican knowing what they did.

Skrynesaver

frostyjacks wrote: »

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

So is the problem is the secret Jewish cabal that run the world or the Catholic church's protection of child rapists?

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. By hypocrisy I mean they make big budget films on abuse in the Catholic Church, but are quite happy with other people abusing children. It's an odd state of affairs.

Wow.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Wow.

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

They claim celibacy is the issue, that it creates a culture of secrecy. Plus the Boston Globe turns a blind eye to child abuse in other institutions.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dave-pierre/2015/11/22/boston-globes-spotlight-sex-abuse-shows-hypocrisy

Is that what they claim? I haven't seen the film (and probably won't for a while), so I'll have to take your word for it. If the film does claim that clerical celibacy is the root of child abuse in the RCC, I'd be inclined to see it as a fairly simplistic explanation (not that that's unheard of in movies, of course). On the other hand, it'd be hard to see how mandatory repression of the sex drive is completely unconnected to the matter.

Your second allegation is pretty damning though, if true. Do you mean that they ignore cases of child abuse not committed by Catholic clergy? Thats hard to believe.

Thanks for the link; I was previously unaware of that (rather unfortunately-titled) site. It's not a terribly well-written article, though; long on polemic, short on detail. Newsbusters indeed!

PopePalpatine

Funnily enough, I was wondering who "NewsBusters" were, it turns out they're kind of the "SourceWatch Eire" to the reactionary (conservative just isn't strong enough) Media Research Council's Legatus.

The Randy Riverbeast

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Funnily enough, I was wondering who "NewsBusters" were, it turns out they're kind of the "SourceWatch Eire" to the reactionary (conservative just isn't strong enough) Media Research Council's Legatus.

Top comment is trying to blame those evil gays for abusing children. Can get an idea of their audience.

If people are struggling to understand why a global organisation is getting more attention than a local group that 99% of the world knows nothing about then I don't think there is much point paying attention to them.

Links234

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. By hypocrisy I mean they make big budget films on abuse in the Catholic Church, but are quite happy with other people abusing children. It's an odd state of affairs.

You know Frosty, you're not entirely wrong. If the allegations from Corey Feldman and others are true, there are folks in Hollywood who've basically run a pedophile ring, and there's been more than enough allegations made towards director Bryan Singer to make you wonder, not to mention people like Victor Salva and Jeffrey Jones who are still working today. But, you bring this up seemingly not out of concern that Hollywood has these issues, rather to dismiss criticism of the catholic church, you care less about hypocrisy and more about deflection. The fact that you consider the movie "catholic-bashing" shows that you care more about admonishing other parties for criticizing the church than any perceived hypocrisy, and far from altruism on your part, you just don't want the catholic church being held accountable. This is what you'd consider concern trolling.

Links234

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Top comment is trying to blame those evil gays for abusing children. Can get an idea of their audience.

Wow. I had a look at the comments there, absolutely shocking! That's some Paul McHugh level of ****ed up.

Cabaal

frostyjacks, honest questions for you.

- Do you believe that the catholic church's handling of the sex abuse it has overseen has been acceptable up until 2000?
- Do you believe the Catholic church has adequately compensated victims its actions have lead to the abuse of?
- Do you believe it is acceptable for the Vatican to send representatives over to Ireland to interview abuse victims and then accuse abuse victims of lying and claiming that they were only "in it for the money!"?
- Do you believe in recent times the Church has taken appropriate steps to stop further abuse and report abuse it becomes aware of?
- Do you believe the Catholic Church in Ireland and the Vatican have freely and openly worked with government and UN investigations into abuses?
- Do you think it was appropriate for Cardinal Sean Brady to have remained in his position after it came to light that he failed to report abuse he became aware of and his involvement in ensuring an abuse victim agreed to silence?

Be nice if instead of you directing blame away if you actually answered the above, they are perfectly reasonable questions to somebody who seems to want to defend the church by labeling others.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

Can you find an equal level of abuse carried out by the Jewish religious orders?
Have they also performed this abuse it basically every country they exist in?

Your argument against this is silly, you forgot that it is CATHOLICS who are disgusted by the abuse that has happened. It is CATHOLICS who also worked for the Boston globe and wrote the stories (most of them were Catholics).

It is majority of self identified CATHOLICS in Ireland etc that have gone to see this movie. In American if the movie did so well it involved Christians and Catholics going to see it too...not just Jewish people.

Bottom line is you can only blame the Vatican and the ****en evil Catholics for the abuses and the good Catholics for us becoming aware of the abuses.

frostyjacks

- Do you believe that the catholic church's handling of the sex abuse it has overseen has been acceptable up until 2000?
Yes


- Do you believe the Catholic church has adequately compensated victims its actions have lead to the abuse of?
Yes, more than adequate.

- Do you believe it is acceptable for the Vatican to send representatives over to Ireland to interview abuse victims and then accuse abuse victims of lying and claiming that they were only "in it for the money!"?
Yes

- Do you believe in recent times the Church has taken appropriate steps to stop further abuse and report abuse it becomes aware of?
Yes, it's learned it's lessons the hard way.

- Do you believe the Catholic Church in Ireland and the Vatican have freely and openly worked with government and UN investigations into abuses?
Don't know, I'm confident they have taken the necessary steps.

- Do you think it was appropriate for Cardinal Sean Brady to have remained in his position after it came to light that he failed to report abuse he became aware of and his involvement in ensuring an abuse victim agreed to silence?
Yes, better to have a good man at the helm than risk uncertainty. Why this obsession with calling for people's heads every time they drop the ball?

Huntergonzo

frostyjacks

I have an easier question for you frostyjacks:

Do you think?........that's it, that's the question. Now take your time.

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

- Do you believe that the catholic church's handling of the sex abuse it has overseen has been acceptable up until 2000?
Yes

Wow. Not even the f*cking Church thinks that. Not even the vast vast vast vast vast majority of Catholics think that. Not even the priests who actually committed the abuse think that.

Your defence of the Church is laughable, and as such, I laugh at it.

Hahahahaha.