OUR FATHERS

US, 2005, 130 minutes, Colour.
Ted Danson, Christopher Plummer, Brian Dennehy, Daniel Baldwin, Ellen Burstyn, Kenneth Welsh, Will Lyman, Wayne Best, Jan Rubes.
Directed by Dan Curtis.

Our Fathers was screened on US cable channel, Showtime, on May 21st, 2005. It was also screened in the market at the Cannes Film Festival for sales for cinema exhibition or television screenings in countries outside the US.

2002 was a most difficult year for the Catholic church in the United States. Many victims of clerical sexual abuse and molestation made themselves known to authorities, especially after the court proceedings against Fr John Geoghan in Boston. It was a harrowing year for these victims with their memories and hurt and for their families. It was also a harrowing year for many in authority in the Church, from bishops to diocesan directors of communication who had to find ways of responding to media demands while always offering compassion to those who suffered. It was a year of apologies. It was a year of judicial proceedings and attempts to formulate appropriate protocols for the American church.

Our Fathers, directed by Dan Curtis, and based on the book, Our Fathers: the Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, by David France who had covered the story when a senior editor at Newsweek, is a dramatized interpretation of the year in Boston which began with the Fr Geoghan trial, continued with other priests being accused and ended with the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law. The film is generally carefully written, giving voice to a range of perspectives, questions and attitudes that have emerged in connection with the sex abuse cases. The legal aspects of the case are frequently centre screen. As might be expected, the film is supportive of victims and critical of church authorities, personalities and procedures.

Since the cases were so prominently featured in all the media over a long period, the events are in the public domain. It is part of the healing of memories for the victims as well as for Catholics, both in authority and in the pews, that films like Our Fathers are seen and discussed. When the story cuts deep, it is an opportunity for examination of conscience as well as for atonement. The church has been facing these realities, sometimes forced to face them and reluctantly, but cannot shirk them. It is important to remember, as Cardinal George Pell of Sydney declared after accusations were made against him that he would step down from office during the time of the investigation into the allegations, that he was not above civil law or canon law. The investigation was carried out. The allegations were found to have no substance and he resumed his ministry as archbishop of Sydney. Americans remember that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was falsely accused of abusing a seminarian and went to visit the man in hospital as he was dying. The abuse experience has called for both honesty and compassion in the church.

It can be important for audiences, especially Catholic audiences, to watch dramatisations of cases like those of Fr Geoghan and Fr Birmingham (they are on the record). Newspaper headlines and reports do not always tell the human story behind the media story. Analyses in papers and magazines, on radio and television help to clarify ideas but do not always communicate the experience and the feelings of those concerned. The media of theatre and film are able to do this. The play Doubt, where a nun suspects a priest of abuse, won several Tony awards. There are quite a number of films dealing with abuse of children, many of them with church themes: Song for a Raggy Boy, Mal Educacion, The Boys of St Vincent, The Magdalene Sisters…

Our Fathers shows the victims of abuse in their adult years and the damage that they still bear, ranging from low self-esteem and marital difficulties, even to suicide. Sometimes Catholics who have not personally encountered someone who has experienced abuse are not really aware of the consequences of the abuse and the long-term spiritual and psychological damage – and alienation from priests and the church. They are not aware of the constant feelings of shame and self-blame that the victims retain. Our Fathers uses discreetly filmed flashbacks (with the emphasis on verbal communication rather than visuals of the molestations) to bring home the reality of the abuse within the context of family life, school, church and the plausible pretexts that the clergy used to deceive parents and rationalize their behaviour with the children.

The film, which starts with Fr Geoghan’s ordination and the bishop asking the seminary rector whether this candidate was worthy, also fills in aspects of the accused priests’ lives and behaviour. Opinions of fellow priests are indicated and their wariness. In dramatic terms, one of the most moving sequences has an adult character remember his experiences with Fr Birmingham and then reveal to his fellow-victims that he had visited the priest as he was dying in hospital thirteen years earlier to find some kind of forgiveness for his hatred of him.

Many critics blame lawyers for inflating the cases for the sake of greater financial compensation. This theme is tackled well in the film. Ted Danson portrays Mitchell Garebandian, the lawyer who found himself in deeper waters than he anticipated and pursued Fr Geoghan. He is portrayed warts and all, his callow attitudes as well as his more personal involvement in the cases, his temptations to celebrity as well as his decent behaviour. The screenplay traces the steps he took to find evidence and documentation concerning the priests, letters written by complaining parishioners, a formal report from the 1980s commissioned by the church, which were not made available by Church authorities until a judge compelled them to. The decisions of the Boston Globe to pursue the issues and the people are also dramatized.

Christopher Plummer appears as Cardinal Law. He interprets the Cardinal in a complex way. He is a churchman of the old school who sees it as his duty to protect the church and its reputation. He is a prelate who comes to realize that he has made grave mistakes in judgment – the scene where he speaks of his mistakes to Pope John Paul II has moving moments and takes us into the mind and heart of the Cardinal. The other sequences which repay viewing to try to understand how the Cardinal saw his role include a visit of one of the victims (who has been ignored and put off even when the Cardinal had said he would meet victims) confronts him in his residence and forces the Cardinal to listen and empathise as well as persuading him to attend a meeting of victims and families where he has a tough reception.

A sub-plot concerning a sometimes disgruntled priest, Fr Dominic Spagnolia (Brian Dennehy in a no holds barred performance) who speaks in his pulpit against Cardinal Law and demonstrates against him sometimes distracts from the main thrust of the film. Towards the end of the film, however, it becomes very serious as this priest has to face his own demons as well as allegations.

Films like Our Fathers are not easy to watch, even for those who do not share Christian faith, because they portray the scandal of men who are publicly committed to God and goodness abusing their trust in a predatory and secret way. The scandals have been more widespread around the world than anyone would have imagined twenty years ago. They have significance for the credibility of the church and the clergy. They have all kinds of repercussions on the faith of the faithful. The financial compensation to victims has led to diocesan bankruptcies and the curtailing of many charity and educational projects.

In these cases, the sins of the fathers affect their victims who need compassion and they affect all those who belong to the church.
1. The impact of the film for Americans? For people of Boston? For world-wide audiences?

2. The film based on facts, on the book by the Newsweek reporter, real characters, aspects fictionalised? The screenplay for dramatic interpretation? The impact?

3. The purpose for making the film: information, recording history, journalistic coverage? Entertainment, shock, disgust, an attack on the church, a portrait of the victims and their plights?

4. The Boston settings, the background of the victims, Cardinal Law (and the church, Father Spagnolia? The Vatican sequences? The musical score?

5. Boston in 2002, the accusation against Father Geoghan, Father Birmingham? The year for Cardinal Law and his advisers? For the victims? For the law and processes? For the lawyers? The American bishops? The Vatican and Pope John Paul II?

6. The title, the status of priests, the expectations of priests in the church, people’s regard for priests? The opening with the ordination, the request to know whether John Geoghan was worthy? The contrast with his life? Seeing him in action, the pastoral situation in the home, his choosing his victims, the plausible reasons for being in rooms with them? The focus of the title on priests and the church at large? The focusing on sexuality, aberrant and abusive behaviour? Civil law, church law? The critique of priests? The repercussions for vocation work, choices and training?

7. The consequences of sexual abuse, the long-term consequences for victims, illness, psychological disturbance, long-held trauma, suicide? For wives and families? The consequences for clergy, the authorities, the reputation of the church throughout the world? Issues of money and compensation? Bankruptcies for dioceses? The focus of consequences for abusive clergy, the application of the law, prison – and the information about the murder of John Geoghan in prison?

8. How fair was the screenplay, the particular perspectives, for and against the church, for and against the lawyers? The portrait of victims and their lives?

9. The screenplay and its allusions to all aspects that have been raised in discussions about sexual abuse by clergy: priests and their appointments, letters of complaint to authorities, the treatment of clergy in institutions for their mental and emotional illnesses, the information given by psychologists and doctors and its adequacy, re-entry of abusive priests into ministry, the possibilities for offending again? The reports done for church officials in the 80s? The role of lawyers, their money-seeking and ambition, their commitment to causes? People being out to get the church? The victims, their shame at being victims, blaming themselves about why they were chosen?

10. Life in Boston, ordinary life, the workers, their families? The churches? The world of the cardinal?

11. The structure of the film, the linear drama of 2002? Interweaving the flashbacks, especially for Father Geoghan and Father Birmingham and their victims? The treatment of the theme, the visuals of the offences, the verbal descriptions – and the avoiding of the prurient?

12. The focus on John Geoghan, the flashback to his ordination in 1962, the later flashback to seminary days, the smoking seminarians and their opinion of Geoghan and his properness? Seeing him in his pastoral activity in the 60s, his consoling the family, taking the boy to the bedroom? The boy’s dreading his visits? His later ministry, reputation, the mother writing the letters to the cardinal? His being sent for treatment? People’s shock about his reappointment – and the casual news given to Angelo de Franco? The reports of the psychiatrists? Geoghan in court, old, in tears? The guilty verdict, prison – and his being murdered?

13. The focus on Joseph Birmingham, as a priest, in himself, the classroom sequences and his taking the boys out, their dreading this? The families? The aftermath? His dying in 1989, Tom Blanchett’s visit, asking for forgiveness for his hatred, the possibilities of reconciliation?

14. The complexity of the Father Spagnolia story, Brian Dennehy’s bluff performance, his being against the cardinal, speaking out, in church, his sermons, joining protests, the media, his speaking at the meeting and people’s reactions? The phone call and the accusations about his relationship? Being true? His going to the bishop, the discussion? The discussion with his friend – and his admitting the truth? His press conference, his leaving the presbytery, the end – and his awaiting investigation? The background of homosexuality as an issue, the priest and his orientation yet his possibilities of ministry, Father Spagnolia’s time out, the one relationship? The differentiation of homosexual orientation from sexual abuse?

15. The complexity of the life of the priest, the good priests, the bad, all tainted by the accusations? The portrait of church officials, secretaries, auxiliary bishops? Protecting the church? The ordinary people, supportive of the church, going to mass – and walking through the group picketing the church?

16. Christopher Plummer’s performance as Cardinal Law? In himself, the 1980s and 1990s, reputation, management of the diocese, as a cardinal? The 1980s and the letter from the mother whose seven sons had been abused? The Doyle report and his not reading it? The medical and psychological reports on Father Geoghan and his reassigning him? The Geoghan situation in 2002? Seeing the church lawyer, heeding his advice, the deals – especially monetary compensation? The ecclesiastical advisers, the auxiliary bishop? His attitude to the situation, wanting to protect the church and its reputation, his relationship with priests? His sympathy for the victims but not having time to see them? Ord and his confronting him, entering the residence, sitting down with him, the cardinal telling him to call him Bernie? His listening to Ord, Ord’s anger? His going to the meeting, the rough reception, the apologies? Always a churchman? The protests? The attitude of the Boston Globe? The American bishops going to Rome, Bishop Wilton Gregory and the press conference about the situation? Cardinal Law and his going to the pope, kneeling before him, the tears, acknowledging his mistakes, his bad judgment, offering to resign? The pope’s advice? His having to cope, the build-up to his final resignation? His character, strengths and weaknesses, a prince of the church – the postscript and the aftermath about his being one of the celebrants for Pope John Paul II's mourning days?

17. The bishops, the auxiliary bishop, his interrogations, advice, attitudes? The ecclesiastical lawyer, the meetings, presumptions? The judge, her being a loyal Catholic, but her judgment that all documents should be available?

18. The glimpse of the pope, Rome, the attitude towards the American church, the abuse and the scandals, the pope speaking out, the scene with Cardinal Law?

19. Mitchell Garabedian, in himself, a lawyer, his career? Angelo de Franco and the others seeking his help? The case against John Geoghan? Following through, his brash style, crass, his assistants and their work? His motivation? The interviews, the meeting with the journalist from the Boston Globe? Angelo de Franco, Patrick McSawley?, the discussions with them? Cavalier, the reality of the case, his preparation, the visits, going to Mary Ryan and getting the copy of the letter, the building up of the dossier, Father Doyle’s report, meeting Father Doyle? The church lawyer and the possibility of deals, his own percentage? Going to court, the trial itself, the plaintiffs? The discussions with Angelo about the monetary payout, his being challenged by Angelo’s attitudes? The case, his achievement? The postscript about his being the Massachusetts lawyer of the year?

20. The Boston Globe, the journalist in the bar, talking with Garabedian? The editor, the editorial discussions, the decision to pursue the case? The journalist returning to see Garabedian at the end? Their Pulitzer Prize achievement?

21. Angelo de Franco, disturbed, with his family, tensions with his wife, the nightmares, the group of friends and the background of their being abused? His family situation, the broader family? Approaching Garabedian, discussions with him, motives? His anger, not wanting the money, hesitating in signing the document? His memories and their being visualised? The other victims, his concern about his brother? Talking with the victims, Ord and his attack on the brothers in the shop? His congratulating him? The end – and his wanting exposure of the case?

22. The Boston victims, their friendship, meeting, drinking, their illnesses, trauma, discussions? The insertion of the visualising of the memories? The taunting Ord, his going to Cardinal Law, outside, the confrontation with the housekeeper, the secretary, his confronting the cardinal, the earnest speech, asking him to empathise, going to the meeting? His achievement?

23. Patrick Mc Sawley, his memories, the effect, drugs, living in the caravan, his collaboration, the difficulties in communicating, his suicide?

24. The cumulative effect of the film: the facts, the shock, cover-ups, the truth, justice, scandal, hurt, apologies, trials, resignations, the image of the church, faith?

25. The effect of storytelling rather than a news report of headlines – audiences needing this kind of story to understand and appreciate the experiences and how they should be handled?