CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

May 31st 2003

Conspiracy of Silence takes up the contemporary theme of celibacy of the Catholic clergy. It screened in the market at Cannes and has been invited to several festivals during 2003, including Taormina, Galway and Montreal.

Writer-director, John Deery, grew up in an Irish Catholic family, briefly considered becoming a priest and is still a practising Catholic. He has said that his film was not the result of immediate personal experience, nor from involvement in debates about the status of celibacy for the clergy, nor from scandals that have beset the Church, especially in Ireland, during the last decade. Rather, during the mid-90s, he said that he was reflecting on the Church at the end of the second millennium and where challenges to its relevance lay. It seemed to him that the celibacy question posed such a challenge, especially with the departure of so many priests from active ministry, the decision of so many to marry, and then the small numbers of men entering the seminaries in Western countries. How would the Church cope with fewer priests? Catholic papers in the United Kingdom featured reports recently of an Australian archbishop, making a plea for young men to come forward to be priests so that the sacraments could continue to be administered. He declared that, failing this, the Church would 'topple over' and be destroyed.

John Deery intends Conspiracy of Silence to stimulate and contribute to the debate about celibacy not being required for priesthood. The screenplay cites the history of the rule and its introduction at the beginning of the second millennium. For many Catholics, this discussion is not new. However, Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed the requirement of the vow for priests. It is current practice and is supported widely around the world. On the other hand, at the Second Vatican Council, many bishops asked for the rule to be changed so that they would have more priests available for ministry, married priests, especially in the developing world. Other bishops noted that the discipline was not observed by a significant number of priests, difficulties being highlighted in Latin America, the Philippines and Africa. However, the Council and Pope Paul VI decided against changing the law.

For some 'Catholics in the Pew', this discussion may not be familiar and could be surprising given the present practice that they are familiar with. For non-Catholic audiences, especially Christian audiences from Churches which do have married clergy, the discussion may not seem relevant except for its importance for Catholics.

John Deery has decided not to write a book, not to examine statistics, not to venture into sociological or psychological explanations, but rather to dramatise the issue in a contemporary Irish situation. His screenplay is based on research and he used Catholic technical advisers. Most Catholics will recognise dialogue, characters and many situations as authentic. They will recongnise the dilemmas of those in good faith concerning celibacy and the misconduct of some of the clergy (both sexually and in the abusive exercise of power) which have become the frequent material for headlines and media coverage and are now all too familiar.

At 87 minutes, the film is modest in scope. While celibacy is the main issue, the screenplay also raises questions of clergy in homosexual relationships, HIV infection and the tragic suicides of clergy who cannot face their situations. With a strong Irish cast, including Brenda Fricker and John Lynch and actual well-known talk-show host, Gai Byrne, the film works on the emotions first and then uses this emotional response as a basis for debating the issues.

Because the legislation is reversible, because Catholics priests of Eastern rites are able to be married and because converts from Anglicanism have been ordained as married priests, the topic is open to discussion. Were the discipline to be changed, it would make clearer the place of priest members of religious orders who take a vow of chastity and develop a particular spirituality to sustain them in their commitment.

Clearly, media interests and those in position to foster controversy, will highlight the film and its issues. It would be a pity if it were sensationalised rather than being seen as a drama and debated fruitfully.