Conclave is an excellently done artistic movie with a destructive message.
On the recommendation of someone whose view on movies I respect, I watched the 2024 movie Conclave, which is a drama about the choosing of a new pope. I was working on my response to the movie, when the news informed us that Pope Francis had died. So, I thought that I should publish this sooner than planned.
This review will focus on some serious theological problems and errors in the movie. However, let me first say that artistically this is an excellent movie, and I recommend watching it. It is no surprise that it was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including best picture. The attention to details concerning the demise of a pope and the election of a new one, the musical score, costuming, and photography are to be commended. The acting was superb. Ralph Fiennes was excellent, as were Isabella Rossellini and Stanley Tucci.
Nevertheless, the movie’s presentation of not just the Roman Catholic Church, but indeed of the Christian faith, is seriously flawed and misleading. There are three problems, all characteristic of a progressive styled Christianity.
- An unfavorable presentation of conservative or traditional Christians
- An attack on the certainty of faith in the name of doubt and tolerance
- A movement into the future unhindered by any restraints
Point 1. By an unfavorable presentation of conservative or traditional Christians I am not
referring to the movie’s portrayal of the nasty politicking for the position of pope by various individuals and factions. Fair or unfair it does not seem unreasonable that such actions could take place.
Rather, I am referring to the movie industry’s seeming incapacity to paint Christian traditionalists in anything approaching a sympathetic light. In the film the traditionalist Italian cardinal is an angry, bigoted and intolerant cleric whom the progressive or liberal cardinals fear will take the church back to the dark ages. At the least, this is an artistic failure of the imagination. That failure, however, is driven by ideological commitments.
Point 2. These ideological commitments come to the fore in the opening homily by Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, played by Ralph Fiennes. He is Dean of the College of Cardinals and is in charge of administrating the conclave. After a general appeal to be subject to one another and the need to work together, he exhorts the cardinals to be tolerant, no one faction or individual seeking to dominate another. This is followed by the assertion that “God’s gift to the church is variety.”
All of this is fine and standard fare, but then the mask of tolerance is torn off. The cardinal states, “One sin I have come to fear above all others—certainty. Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance.”
With the exclusion of certainty from the fold the inherent flaw of tolerance as the fundamental value is revealed. That which is intolerant, in this view certainty, cannot be tolerated. Who or what does not fit into the tolerant group must be cast out.
The cardinal’s forceful condemnation of certainty demonstrates a significant divergence from the classical liberal ethics of tolerance elaborated in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. The view of Enlightenment writer, Voltaire, has been famously summarized as, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire would mock you, satirize you, and criticize you in brilliant prose, but he would not support the use of force to silence you. In the classical liberal view, the fundamental value is freedom of speech.
Another significant shift, which puts the two advocacies of tolerance in different camps, is an epistemological one, that is, it has to do with knowledge. Voltaire’s Enlightenment was not called the Age of Reason for nothing. They believed fervently that there was truth, and that human reason could discover it. They were certain of the truth.
However, in the cardinal’s speech, which does represent contemporary notions of tolerance, certainty is the great enemy of tolerance. When I was studying for my doctorate, one of the professors said that Voltaire’s defense of tolerance was not strong enough. If we are going to be tolerant, we must give up the notion of truth. This is precisely what the cardinal advocates. The certainty of truth must be cast out. The basis of tolerance is doubt.
But it gets worse. According to the cardinal, faith and doubt are equal partners. Indeed, faith cannot be faith without doubt. He says, “Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery and therefore no need for faith.”
Certainly, if I may use that word, we all experience doubt in our Christian life. There can be a healthy doubt in which God leads us to question our motives. Or openly admitting doubt about a truth can be the first step to accepting that truth, as did the apostle Thomas who doubted the witness of his fellow disciples that they had seen the risen Christ. Faith to be faith does not need doubt. Ultimately, the goal is to overcome doubt with faith.
Ultimately, faith is about confidence, assurance, knowledge. The classic definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 applies here. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” The Christian is assured of things hoped for because he is certain that what God has promised is true and will come to pass.
Also, as Hebrews 11 states, the Christian’s bedrock conviction is that not all reality is seen. There is a spiritual realm. For this reason, in 2 Corinthians 5:7 Paul writes that we walk by faith not sight. And to walk by faith is not to walk in blind faith. The context is the hope of being with the Lord after death, and the Christian is confident. We are confident because, according to verse 5, God has prepared us for this and given us his Spirit as a guarantee. And in verse 6, we know, we don’t doubt, that while we are in the body we are away from the Lord. We know, we are certain, because we walk by faith, trusting God’s promises and not walking by sight and only trusting our senses, which are limited to physical phenomena.
As I said before, we all experience doubts, but doubt is not necessary to faith. Faith is about trusting, confidence, assurance, conviction, and, yes, certainty.
Point 3. The most dangerous and frightening assertion, which ironically is said with great certainty, is made by the Cardinal of Kabul in Spanish. “La Iglesia no es la tradición, no es el pasado. La iglesia es lo que hagamos en adelante.” “The Church is not tradition, not the past. The Church is what we make of it (or do) from now on.”
In this statement we see the most dangerous feature of this kind of progressive Christianity. It is unrooted without a tradition or past to build upon. In fact, that is the desire. The attack on certainty is the first step in freeing the leaders of this faction to make the church into whatever they want it to be. They are not to be controlled or hindered by the authority of Scripture, longstanding creeds or church tradition. “The Church is what we make of it from now on.”
Interesting too is the fact that this makes the future undefined. It is wholly in their hands to make the church, but they will not be limited by a clearly outlined proposal. This is a recipe for oppression.
In conclusion, let me repeat that Conclave is an excellent example of serious cinema. I recommend watching it but be on your guard and don’t let it mislead you into doubting and abandoning the certain truths of the Christian faith.
Have you seen Conclave? Let me know. Comments are always welcome.
If you’re interested, this review is also available on my YouTube channel, “Thinking Wisely with Dr. Isley.” Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/aXHpfZzY6gg
