Conclave

“Conclave” has been hitting cinemas across Europe following its commercial and critical success in the United States. A thriller set in the Vatican during a papal conclave, it features an exceptionally talented cast including Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow and Sergio Castellitto. Based on the Robert Harris novel, the plot here is initially both simple and believable.

A reforming Pope has died. As the world’s cardinals assemble for the conclave, a number of factions begin to compete with one another. All of the key players in the film are papabili: including the stalwart Italian traditionalist Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), the scheming American liberal Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci) and the compromise candidate Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow).

Overseeing this battle, this “war” as Cardinal Bellini calls it, is the theologically moderate and doubt-plagued dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence – played by Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes is the most talented actor within this stellar cast, and as the brooding Cardinal Lawrence, his is the only character who is in any way well-drawn.

From the outset, it is clear that subtlety is not a quality much valued by the director Edward Berger. The prayer around the bedside of the deceased (and apparently much loved) pontiff is short. One of the churchmen quickly turns his attention to the Fisherman’s Ring. With some force, he wrenches the ring from the Pope’s lifeless hand, after which the body is quickly removed. Those gathered around the barely cold body of the deceased appear solely focused on the issue of succession.

Fault lines over the Church’s teachings on sexuality, the Latin Mass and dialogue with Islam are clearly in evidence as the various factions compete in each round of voting. Here, viewers can see reflections of real battle lines within the contemporary Church, but only in the form of rather dull caricatures.

The makers of “Conclave” clearly see the traditionalists as the villains, and most of the characters are united in their desire to block the ascent of Cardinal Tedesco. His views are clearly a critical representation of conservatives in the Church today. Tedesco bitterly laments the abandonment of the Latin Mass. Confronted with what looks like an Islamic terrorist attack, Tedesco launches into an angry rant blaming liberals for promoting the “doctrine of relativism” (a clear allusion to the late Pope Benedict XVI) before lashing out at Muslim immigrants. He is the old Church personified, and even views the fact that there has not been an Italian Pope for decades as a violation of tradition.

Oddly, Tucci’s Cardinal Bellini is even more of a caricature than Tedesco is, and the nature of his character speaks volumes about how liberals outside of the Church actually perceive the liberal wing within it. Bellini is zealous about the need for reform. At first, he protests that he does not want to become Pope, except perhaps as a means of thwarting Tedesco. Quickly, it becomes obvious that Bellini only cares about becoming Pope.

Rallying the troops in advance of the voting, Bellini lays out his policy platform: an open-minded approach to gays and divorce; no return to the Latin Mass and more inter-religious dialogue. In a statement which is less indicative of open-mindedness than of a dislike of human life itself, Bellini sneeringly states that there should be no going back to the day when Catholic couples had large families because they did “not know better.” Bellini is the obverse of Tedesco. Unlike Sergio Castellitto however, Stanley Tucci’s performance is oddly one-dimensional.

There is no sense of piety at all, no sense that his actions are guided in any way by a sense that he is following the will of God. If Tedesco is a representation of Pope Benedict XVI, then Bellini can be interpreted as a fictional version of the late Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, long considered the great white hope for liberal Catholics. Yet the Jesuit Martini was known for his intellectual accomplishments and his work as a biblical scholar. Bellini, in contrast, appears to be driven only by a desire to secularise the Church, rather than any wish to Christianise the world the Church exists in.

Media and political discussion relating to papal conclaves is often focused on the need for a Martini or Bellini-type figure, but those pushing for such an outcome generally maintain that a Pope could be both pious and progressive.

The makers of “Conclave” are of a liberal mindset, and yet their progressive champion appears to lack any kind of religious faith at all. This is significant – far more so than the bizarre plot twist relating to the Archbishop of Kabul’s election as Pope which will likely prevent many Catholics from even watching the film.

Everything about this sub-plot is ridiculous: the existence of a secret cardinal operating in today’s Afghanistan; the decision by the College of Cardinals to make this total stranger Pope; and the subsequent discovery of a rather unusual fact pertaining to the new pontiff’s biological make-up. All of this should be ignored. What makes “Conclave” preposterous is not the ending but everything that went before it. What is depicted here is not a community of faith. It looks right – in terms of the setting, the outfits, the voting process, and so on – but it never feels right.

Defending the film during a recent interview, Ralph Fiennes said that “Conclave” was “not a facile takedown of the Catholic Church,” before insisting that “the history of the Catholic Church is full of very worldly motivations.” Hardly any student of history would disagree. Yet hardly any student of history would agree that there was nothing more to the Church than worldly motivations, either. Even during the least edifying chapters in the history of the papacy, in the Borgia era or during the various conflicts between Popes and antipopes, those involved had to have had some sense that God was involved in some way.

Throughout the 120 minutes of “Conclave,” the strength of the characters’ religious faith is shown to be limited at best. At one point, Cardinal Bellini tells Cardinal Lawrence that he should not be too disturbed by his recent religious doubts, given that the late Pope had actually “lost faith in the Church” – an extraordinary statement spoken very casually. The sacraments are ignored or even profaned. When one clergyman tells Cardinal Lawrence that he needs to confess to him, Lawrence answers dismissively that there is no time. When Lawrence does hear someone’s Confession, it is a manipulative tactic to obtain information, and he promptly violates the Seal of Confession by revealing information to another party – something which in real life could result in excommunication.

The sin in question relates to a papabile candidate fathering a child thirty years prior to the conclave. Confronted with this, the cardinal is distraught about the damage this could do to his candidacy but utterly indifferent to the existence of his child. The Eucharist is not present or much discussed during the conclave; Jesus is an afterthought. All that matters here is winning an election and assuming power. The possibility that a conclave would involve sincerely religious men – united in their shared faith whatever differences they may have – does not appear to have crossed their minds.

A question arises: why do secular filmmakers produce something like “Conclave”? Faithful Catholics are often annoyed by such films. In truth, the existence of the novel and film is something of a compliment. When the world’s cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and seal the door, even the most anti-Catholic critic knows on some level that serious business is afoot.

Nobody would watch a film about the process for choosing an Archbishop of Canterbury, or a Patriarch of Constantinople or a Moderator General of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Why would they bother? Who would pay to watch such a thing? The institution of the Catholic Church, in contrast, continues to attract the attention of all and the hatred of many. As well it should.

A similar dynamic ensures that Catholic clergy feature frequently in the horror movie genre, and are generally portrayed very well within it. True, this can lead to a problem of morbid fascination. Yet for Hollywood screenwriters, a truth remains: when true evil is encountered and needs to be fought, nobody calls a Methodist lay preacher. The fatal flaw of “Conclave” is its total unseriousness in addressing a very serious issue like a papal conclave.

Soon, we will have a real conclave to watch from afar. Pope Francis has greatly diversified the College of Cardinals, shifting its membership away from Europe and towards the peripheries. When it comes time to choose a new Pope, these cardinals may opt for one of their colleagues who will follow the basic model of Pope Francis. Alternatively, they may wish – as the Italians say – that a fat Pope follows on from a thin one.

Regardless of the outcome, the process will bear no resemblance to this cinematic depiction. Instead, the cardinals will prayerfully consider who is best-placed to lead the Church into the future. After much prayer and careful consideration, they will then choose a successor of Peter, ever conscious of who Peter was chosen by.

It promises to be vastly more interesting than this preposterous and wildly overrated film.