Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Spotlight (2015)

Michchamp

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
34,212
anybody else see this?

this movie is so good even the catholic church was like, "yes, we suck. we fucked up bad. we agree. go see the movie. we understand if you never want to come back to church, or give us money again. sorry humanity. we'll go away now."

that's how good this movie was.
 
anybody else see this?

this movie is so good even the catholic church was like, "yes, we suck. we fucked up bad. we agree. go see the movie. we understand if you never want to come back to church, or give us money again. sorry humanity. we'll go away now."

that's how good this movie was.

Yeah, it was a really good movie, but the movie wasn't a breaking expose itself; it was a the story of a team of reporters (as I remember the characters were mostly Catholics themselves) who discovered and broke the expose over a period of time in the Boston Globe.

It was a biopic about a story that everybody already knows.

But it was a good movie, and it won the Oscar, and was probably as deserving as any of the nominees.
 
Yeah, it was a really good movie, but the movie wasn't a breaking expose itself; it was a the story of a team of reporters (as I remember the characters were mostly Catholics themselves) who discovered and broke the expose over a period of time in the Boston Globe.

It was a biopic about a story that everybody already knows.

But it was a good movie, and it won the Oscar, and was probably as deserving as any of the nominees.

yeah, the events took place in '01-'02. I never read the original reporting though, just other articles on it.

the ending was crazy. where they were like "since the Globe's reporting, additional sex abuse scandals were discovered in the following cities," then show a whole screen full of city names. Then I said to my wife " hey those are alphabetical, there's going to be more" then there were two more screens. then they say "...aaand in the following foreign cities" and there are two-three more screens full of dioceses beset by scandals. Fucking Eh!

6% of all priests were estimated to be child predators, or at the height of the church's membership here (60's-70's) ... three thousand. now there are about 38,000 priests in the US, or 2,280. And they are shielded from scrutiny by the church, and moved from place to place... or were up until the 2000's. Now who knows?

the movie also makes the claim the celibacy thing is what has made the problem worse, by attracting men likely to be sexually abusive.

just let these guys marry already. would solve most of your problems.
 
I was glad to see Rachel McAdams get some artistic recognition.

She's a pretty girl and she's a good actress; she just never had a role before that merited this amount of artistic recognition.
 
I went to catholic schools for 12 years. After the scandal broke, I wondered if some of the priests, nuns, or brothers who taught me were abusing or had abused kids. I would be surprised. they all seemed more or less decent. (some of the nuns were huge, evil-looking bull-dykes though.)

this sort of makes sense, as in the movie and the reporting, they revealed that abusive priests typically targeted kids from broken homes, without fathers, who had troubled pasts. there weren't a lot of kids like that at any of the cath schools i attended. probably more of an inner-city or rural thing.

when i was in jr high, I remember the Legionaries of Christ bought property next to our school. they had this one creepy priest that used to constantly come over to the school and encourage boys to come to after school events at their place (my jr. high was coed, and i noticed they never approached girls). I avoided that place as much as I could because it always just creeped me out in a way I couldnt explain. we had some official school retreats there (coed) but i always GTFO as soon as they ended. I remember there were a bunch of guys who would go to events there including weekend sleepovers.

years later, I read about them and found out they were founded by a pedophile priest in Mexico, who came from an upper class background and received money from the mexican wealthy. after decades of abusing kids, the vatican eventually sent him away to a monastery. they allowed the organization to continue operating though. and they kept all the money the pedophile brought in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It might be time for the church to openly accept homosexuals as opposed to pushing people with those tendencies into the priesthood. When I was in school, the official line was that they thought the act was a sin but not the inclination. The decision was to force gay men into a life of celibacy? sure, that's a normal situation for a human being with desires. Actually, it might have been time to change that stance about 50 years ago.
 
Great movie. Very troubling for sure how widespread those predators were.
 
Last edited:
It might be time for the church to openly accept homosexuals as opposed to pushing people with those tendencies into the priesthood. When I was in school, the official line was that they thought the act was a sin but not the inclination. The decision was to force gay men into a life of celibacy? sure, that's a normal situation for a human being with desires. Actually, it might have been time to change that stance about 50 years ago.

Technically they're supposed to be celibate whether their inclinations are gay or otherwise.

Not that I care about the church's rules for its priest because I'm not Catholic.
 
It might be time for the church to openly accept homosexuals as opposed to pushing people with those tendencies into the priesthood. When I was in school, the official line was that they thought the act was a sin but not the inclination. The decision was to force gay men into a life of celibacy? sure, that's a normal situation for a human being with desires. Actually, it might have been time to change that stance about 50 years ago.

Might be too much to absorb for many here.

And the notion of the Church "forcing" gay men to become priests? It was the other way around, in a matter of speaking. The Church "openly accepted homosexuals" into its ranks, specific to selected seminaries and dioceses. And it's documented that homosexuals commit a disproportionate percentage of sex abuse crimes against children. Yet the critics neglect that fact and discount that this has anything to to with homosexuality qua homosexuality.
 
Might be too much to absorb for many here.

And the notion of the Church "forcing" gay men to become priests? It was the other way around, in a matter of speaking. The Church "openly accepted homosexuals" into its ranks, specific to selected seminaries and dioceses. And it's documented that homosexuals commit a disproportionate percentage of sex abuse crimes against children. Yet the critics neglect that fact and discount that this has anything to to with homosexuality qua homosexuality.

It's also documented that men commit a disproportionate percentage of sex abuse crimes against children. Time for the clergy to start letting straight women be priests!
 
Yeah ... no.

I don't understand the no women thing either. I'm not buying the disciples were men argument either. Christ said nothing about gender roles in spreading His word and the genders of the company he happened to keep says more about social norms of the time. Very glad the Pope is looking into historical accounts of women deacons.
 
Technically they're supposed to be celibate whether their inclinations are gay or otherwise.

Not that I care about the church's rules for its priest because I'm not Catholic.

The teaching was that acting on the impulse was a sin, acting on a heterosexual impulse within marriage was not. The way to avoid sin for someone who was gay was to enter the priesthood but I don't think it was as much of a choice.
 
I don't understand the no women thing either. I'm not buying the disciples were men argument either. Christ said nothing about gender roles in spreading His word and the genders of the company he happened to keep says more about social norms of the time. Very glad the Pope is looking into historical accounts of women deacons.

Christ cared nothing for "social norms of the time." He still doesn't. He picked 12 men. He's God, and he can do that. And the most important human of the Church was/is/ever will be a woman. And women play an intrinsic and vibrant role in the Church. Just not as priests.

Would that they ever got what they asked for, because they have no idea. Few do, yet they are the ones clamoring for this the most and the loudest.
 
Christ cared nothing for "social norms of the time." He still doesn't. He picked 12 men. He's God, and he can do that. And the most important human of the Church was/is/ever will be a woman. And women play an intrinsic and vibrant role in the Church. Just not as priests.

Would that they ever got what they asked for, because they have no idea. Few do, yet they are the ones clamoring for this the most and the loudest.

So? What's the rule based on? Did Christ wear any shoes other than sandals? Maybe we should make that a rule.
 
So? What's the rule based on? Did Christ wear any shoes other than sandals? Maybe we should make that a rule.

There's so much depth and complexity to the reasons that Catholic priesthood is reserved for men.

Here is the short answer: "The maleness of Christ is an important sign of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. As in nearly all cultures a man takes the initiative in winning a wife, so Christ took the initiative in winning souls and establishing His Church. For this reason, marriage is a 'mystery' or sacrament of the Church."

It's significant that all the original 12 save one were subjected to a martyr's death like Christ Himself. Only John died a natural death, and it's significant that he was the only apostle present at the Cross.

This thread is diverting into other areas unintended.
 
So? What's the rule based on? Did Christ wear any shoes other than sandals? Maybe we should make that a rule.

I usually wear university of Michigan logo rubber sandal type shoes. In fact I'm wearing them right now.

In the house I'm barefoot.

Also when I swim.

Jesus was also probably barefoot on the water.
 
There's so much depth and complexity to the reasons that Catholic priesthood is reserved for men.

Here is the short answer: "The maleness of Christ is an important sign of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. As in nearly all cultures a man takes the initiative in winning a wife, so Christ took the initiative in winning souls and establishing His Church. For this reason, marriage is a 'mystery' or sacrament of the Church."

It's significant that all the original 12 save one were subjected to a martyr's death like Christ Himself. Only John died a natural death, and it's significant that he was the only apostle present at the Cross.

This thread is diverting into other areas unintended.

If gender is such an important aspect of that analogy, why didn't Christ ever say anything about it? When talking about marriage, there's also a reference to leaving your father and mother and holding onto your wife. So which parts of this marriage analogy do we take as literal and which parts aren't the focus of the analogy?
 
I usually wear university of Michigan logo rubber sandal type shoes. In fact I'm wearing them right now.

In the house I'm barefoot.

Also when I swim.

Jesus was also probably barefoot on the water.

Christ couldn't get sandals with M logos on them...never even got to a game...
 
Back
Top