The Church itself admits the priesthood is rife with pedophiles.

Could you provide verifiable evidence that some senior official used the words “rife with pedophiles”? If not, please admit that you made it up. Then we can progress to your other claims. This will prevent this discussion devolving into a vague and emotional shouting match.

Thank you.

My preexisting opinion was that the Catholic Church is guilty of ignoring the gravity of the crimes of its pedophile priests; that priests who were known by their superiors to be rapists were not removed or turned over to law enforcement. I am not alone in that opinion.

Journalists are ethically bound to present all the necessary facts of a story to remain unbiased. This movie is not a news story. It is a study of how these crimes affected those involved. In the same way as an op-ed story in a newspaper assumes one point of view, anyone watching this movie should have assumed the same of it.

When I see footage of WWII concentration camps, I don’t wonder why I never see happy, well fed people. I know why. Decrying that as manipulative would show a total lack of sympathy for those in the camps.

Sorry to play the “Hitler” card, but it’s completely appropriate here.

I can’t think of anything less material to the story than whether an interviewee is labeled “theologian” or “consultant”. Frankly, the two terms could be used interchangeably without clouding the issue.

The “issue” is Wall’s credibility. Everything he claims to be true is dependant upon it. If Berg decides to actively hide the fact that Wall has a vested interest, she is hiding information relevant to the truth. Would you be as forgiving if a pro-Church documentary listed a known defender of the hierarchy as a mere disinterested “theologian?” I doubt it.

The facts are that the Catholic hierarchy has systematically covered up and ignored the grotesque abuses by it’s own priests.

What evidence are you basing this assertion on? The whole hierarchy? A systematic cover up by all of them?

What facts are in dispute? The Church itself admits the priesthood is rife with pedophiles.

Where is your evidence that “The Church” “admits the priesthood is rife with pedophiles”?

“I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I am in the process of actively seeking ex-communication.”

I was also raised Catholic and also went through Catholic primary and secondary schools. What’s your point? That it therefore makes you an expert on Catholicism? And why would you care what they think of your formal status? Just leave the organisation. You don’t have to be excommunicated in order to disassociate from the Church and it would only make sense to do so if you deep down care what they think of you. I simply stopped identifying as a Catholic and don’t care if the Church formally still considers me a member.

When I read reviews like yours which downplay the horrors perpetrated by the clergy it makes me sad and angry.

Now you’re just making things up. I never did anything of the kind.

Every documentary film has a point of view. It isn’t necessary to follow journalistic protocol to tell a true story. And in this film the facts themselves determine the point of view. This is a black and white story, and you’re complaining that the filmmaker told it from the white point of view.

When I view someone present an argument, I want to know if the things they’re claiming are accurate. That’s what “journalistic protocol” is for. It’s not some mere formality, like the font used in a title card. It’s there so that an objective person can have a reason to believe the claims being made are correct. This film may have confirmed your preexisting opinions, but it cannot have done so through the presentation of reliable arguments, because, in significant parts, it lacks such arguments.

I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I am in the process of actively seeking ex-communication. When I read reviews like yours which downplay the horrors perpetrated by the clergy it makes me sad and angry. The culpability of the Church Hierarchy in the cover-up is absolute.

Every documentary film has a point of view. It isn’t necessary to follow journalistic protocol to tell a true story. And in this film the facts themselves determine the point of view. This is a black and white story, and you’re complaining that the filmmaker told it from the white point of view.

I’m well aware that he is an ex-priest and therefore has formal qualifications in theology. My concern is with the fact that he is not a professional theologian in paid employment but rather a consultant in a law firm suing a number of RC Archdioceses. I think that the fairest and most accurate title is that of an employee of Manly’s law firm, with past experience as a priest. Instead, the relationship he has with Manly is minimised by labelling him a “theologian.”

I think that viewers should be given as much relevant information as possible, and I drew the conclusion that the filmmakers had deliberately excluded relevant information from viewers by labelling Wall a “theologian” when he’s not employed in that capacity.

I think that I could have been more objective in my review, and I would not have employed the same tone were I to write another review today. I still feel that the film seriously misrepresents these important issues and by doing so I was disappointed not only in the failings of the filmmakers but the failure of many to recognise and criticise those errors.

Thank you for contributing to my discussion of this issue.

Two points:
First, I’m not a Catholic.
Second, my view is that this film contains a great number of misrepresentations and other inaccuracies. I don’t know why you think that repeating things that aren’t true will help the cause of victims.

I want those who contributed, directly or indirectly, to the abuse of children to be severely punished. This film doesn’t help achieve that objective because the filmmakers and some participants seemed more concerned with ideological point scoring than with a rational and objective analysis of the issues.

“Make no mistake, this film seeks incite ridicule and hatred, not of paedophiles, but of Roman Catholicism.”

Absolutely correct.

Bravo.

–