The film "Catholics" (Martin Sheen)

[HomeschoolDad]

I saw this film many years ago. Who else here has seen it?

Very much recommended. This is a low quality copy; it may be available on some other streaming services, I don’t know. I got my copy at the dollar store. Evidently it has gone into the public domain.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There is allegedly a scene missing from this version where Sheen’s character is getting orders from the Pope who is now called the Father General or something.

Fun fact: Martin Sheen named himself after Fulton Sheen.

 

[CTBcin]

Fun fact: Martin Sheen named himself after Fulton Sheen.

I only learned that very recently. I thought that was very cool!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Fun fact: Martin Sheen named himself after Fulton Sheen.

His legal name remains Ramon Estevez. Fine actor. I’ve tried to like “The West Wing” but I’m not into episodic television drama (unless it’s “Breaking Bad” ). I like him very much in every movie of his I’ve seen.

 

[commenter]

I saw the movie in the early 1970s. I think the writer got the idea when he happened to visit Mass after V2, he had been away for many years. He was shocked.

In the movie, the Church was entered into ecumenical discussion with the Buddhists(!)

In real life it’s more important whether the writer ever returned to the Faith, than just the fact he got the idea for a saleable TV movie.

It seems odd I have never seen it listed for viewing since. I wonder if the SSPX or Trad groups promote it. I think there were 12 monks in the monastery.

 

[CTBcin]

His legal name remains Ramon Estevez. Fine actor. I’ve tried to like “The West Wing” but I’m not into episodic television drama (unless it’s “Breaking Bad” ). I like him very much in every movie of his I’ve seen.

One of my favorites is “Apocolypse Now.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

He was very handsome in several of his early films where he basically played handsome psychopaths who abducted young women and committed murders.
I feel guilty liking him in such films, due to the creepy subject matter, but he was very handsome.

I also liked him as the Chief of Staff (corrected) in “The American President” (which starred another of my favorite actors, Michael Douglas, as the President). When Sheen showed up as the President on “The West Wing”, it just seemed like his political career naturally progressed to the point of getting elected.

 

[tomarin]

I tracked this down and watched it sometime around 2008, I believe. I don’t remember too much about it, except that the action takes place at a monastery on an island off the coast of Ireland, it takes place in the future when priests wear everyday clothing (due to some liberalizing Vatican III conference) and the monk or abbot played by Trevor Howard has a dark secret which is revealed at the end.

 

[dochawk]

Schismatic or not, I kind of think he left the Catholic fold when he left/separated/divorced his wife and got his young girlfriend pregnant . . .

hawk

 

[commenter]

If you or someone else doesn’t mind, could you post what was the dark secret? You could put the typical SPOILER ALERT".

It has been over 40 years since I saw the movie. It and the novel by Brian Moore are hard to find. Movie also goes by the title “Conflict”.

 

[tomarin]

It’s a little hazy in my mind but I think it had to do with his conflicted sexual impulses.

 

[Sbee0]

Sheen is a staunch pro life Catholic. Very rare in Hollywood.

Gibson I believe is a sedevacantist not Catholic. He said so years ago.

 

[commenter]

I ordered the novel from downtown library. If it’s interesting I may comment on it here.

 

[Dovekin]

Brian Moore is an acclaimed novelist, praised by Graham Green as a favorite, etc. He wrote the book and the screenplay for this movie as well as for Black Robe. Other writers have adapted his novels for the screen, like Judith Hearne, The Statement.

His portrayals of religion are complex, sympathetic, and deep. Catholics asks what motivates obedience and dissent in communities committed to life together. The answers are not simple.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Sheen is a staunch pro life Catholic. Very rare in Hollywood.

Gibson I believe is a sedevacantist not Catholic. He said so years ago.

Does a sedevacantist, strictly speaking, cease to be a Catholic? And if so, how?

First of all, I am not a sedevacantist and I do not advocate sedevacantism. However, if you strip down the definition to its bare essence — “a Catholic who believes the Chair of Peter at this moment is vacant”, or even “a Catholic who believes that the status of the Chair of Peter at this moment is something other than it actually is” — then it’s hard to see how this places the person outside the Church.

There have been times in the history of the Church when some of the faithful followed antipopes. How, exactly, were they different from sedevacantists? At any one point, there was only one pope — you can’t have two reigning popes at the same time (Benedict XVI does not reign, and despite the courtesy titles, is not the pope anymore.) Some followed him and some did not. Were those who followed “the wrong pope” outside the Church? (There are small groups today who do, in fact, follow men whom they mistakenly believe to be pope.)

 

[Dovekin]

However, if you strip down the definition to its bare essence — “a Catholic who believes the Chair of Peter at this moment is vacant”, or even “a Catholic who believes that the status of the Chair of Peter at this moment is something other than it actually is” — then it’s hard to see how this places the person outside the Church.

How about if you strip it down to “a person who rejects the legitimacy of the current Pope”?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

However, if you strip down the definition to its bare essence — “a Catholic who believes the Chair of Peter at this moment is vacant”, or even “a Catholic who believes that the status of the Chair of Peter at this moment is something other than it actually is” — then it’s hard to see how this places the person outside the Church.

That would fall under the second category, “a Catholic who believes that the status of the Chair of Peter at this moment is something other than it actually is”.

To use a reductio ad absurdum, a priest wakes up in the morning and has not yet heard the news that the pope died during the night. He goes to the Church and offers Mass “una cum” the dead pope. He "believes that the status of the Chair of Peter at this moment is something other than it actually is”. Or the other way around — the pope has died a few days prior, the cardinals are in conclave, and a new pope has been elected during the night. He hasn’t heard the news yet. He does not offer Mass “una cum” the new pope (“una cum” is omitted during the short sede vacante interregnums between papal elections). He is mistaken as to a point of fact, but he cannot be said to be “outside the Church” or “not Catholic”.

Again, I do not agree with any of the sedevacantist theories floating around out there, but I have my doubts that we can automatically say sedevacantists are “not Catholic”.

 

[Dovekin]

Yes, that is why I used “rejects” and “current”. Your definitions leave out intention (rejects) and circumstances (current). When you leave those out, you get absurdities, as you say.