This is my review of the movie PRIEST which I had the good fortune to see
in early April of 1995.

The movie deals with two Roman Catholic priests who officiate together in
the same church. The older priest cohabits with their housekeeper in a
romantic relationship, and the younger priest is a homosexual who has a
liason with another man.

This theme of Catholic clergymen leading sexual lives seems to be the issue
that had the Catholic Church clergy up in arms. Probably everyone reading
this has heard that they wanted it boycotted. The one cardinal who cried
the loudest had not even seen the film but made pronuncimentos based upon
what others had told him about the film, and it seems to me that they did
not relate the film to him with the proper emphasis.

It is already well known that when religious people take it upon themselves
to boycott a film, it backfires on them. THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
grossed more money than it would ordinarily have because groups of
Christians gave it undue publicity by publicly protesting it. But it seems
that people don't learn from history.

There are many things I can say about the film. I happen to have liked it
very much. In this review, I will only deal with one aspect, the character
of the young homosexual priest. My own belief is that the author of the
story introduced homosexuality into the character of the priest for reasons
having nothing to do with sexuality at all, but to highlight the particular
character defect of this particular priest, and that the character of the
priest is really more than that of a particular clergyman of a particular
denomination. This priest stands for a certain religious TYPE which can be
found among the leaders of ANY religion. I believe that the author used the
Roman Catholic priesthood for no other reason than that the RCC is the
religious institution that he is most familiar with. I believe the author
is a Catholic himself.

The young priest finds himself irresistibly drawn to other men so that
he simply cannot overcome whatever religious taboo there exists in
Catholicism against homosexual behavior. So unable is he to fight
against this urge that he even tells the older priest that when he turns
to Christ for help against his sexual urges, he sees the form of a naked
man which he finds desirable. All this sexuality, however IMHO, is just
mechanism to set off against a matter that arises later on in the film. The
matter is as follows. A young girl comes to him for confession and reveals
to him that she is, and has been, the victim of on going sexual abuse, and
there is no one to help her. The young priest wants to help her but he does
not go to the authorities because he feels that he cannot break the Church
law of the confidentiality of the confessional. Because he does nothing
about it, the young girl continues to be abused.

Here is the crux. When it comes to his own bodily and emotional needs,
he does not fight against the Church law against homosexuality - but
when it comes to someone else, he is willing not to break the Church
law.

The details of the contrast are not important. The movie, deep down, is
neither about homosexuality nor child molestation. It is about the weakness
of people and their rationalizations, no matter how well meaning those
rationalizations may be. When it comes to the self, what is ok for the self
is not ok for the OTHER. This is something that all of us have been guilty
of at one time or another. It is a universal problem that the film presents
to us. Of course there are other issues dealt with in the film, but this
one is of the utmost importance. How do we let ourselves get away with what
we won't allow when it comes to others? It is a call for forgiveness and a
search deep within that leads us hopefully to repentance.

That the author used the double themes of anti-celibacy and homosexuality
is a matter of current style. Both of these issues have been thrust at the
public by the media over the past few years. They are ongoing problems that
the Church does not deal with very well, and they have existed within the
Church for many centuries. The dilemnas presented by the film transcend
sexuality which is only a vehicle for the much larger issues.

We are supposed to be our brothers' keepers. That is a responsibility
that involves understanding, compassion, and forgiveness far more than
it involves condemnation and self-pride.

The film is well worth the seeing regardless of what your own religious
stand is.

New York
4-19-95