Why does the movie "Elizabeth" butcher the Catholic Church? And other questions from our readers.

You won't find Elizabeth on the Vatican's "Best Films" list.

Q I recently saw the movie Elizabeth, which butchered the image of the Catholic Church. Anyone can rewrite history or slant the news as long as no one calls them on it. I was hoping Envoy could respond to the terrible portrayal of the Catholic Church in this movie so we can better defend the Church when asked. Secondly, from the early 40’s until late 60’s many great movies about the Catholic Faith and saints were produced and widely distributed. Whatever happened to those good ole days? Does Envoy have a list of the top 100 Catholic movies you can recommend? And where we can buy them?

A I have not seen the movie so I’m not going to attempt a specific rebuttal of its version of history. The Catholic Restoration in Britain, while it would likely come off quite well by comparison with the forces represented by Elizabeth, wasn’t by any means exemplary. Pope John Paul II has made a point of acknowledging that members of the Church, even at the highest levels, at times did things that were indefensible. An honest recognition of this underlies any effective defense of the Church. At any rate, reinterpretations of history - along with “creative license” - will be always with us. Dealing with them merits separate and deeper consideration. I will save that for next issue.

Q A letter to the editor in our diocesan newspaper quotes a statement by the late Fr. Raymond Brown: “There is really no proof that in New Testament times Peter would have been looked upon as the bishop of the Roman community.” The letter goes on to say that Fr. Brown also deems it “likely that the single-bishop structure did not come to Rome until around A.D. 140-150.” How does this hold up against St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and Christian tradition?

Even if Brown's interpretation is correct, papal primacy and authority are in no way undermined. It took the Church four centuries to figure out exactly what she believed with regard to God and Jesus; it would be rather surprising if a developed doctrine of the papacy or episcopate had surfaced before the most fundamental questions were resolved.

A The early evidence is somewhat inconclusive. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans, addresses the church at Rome as a whole as “presiding over the communion in charity,” but makes no mention of her bishop. St. Clement, when writing to the Corinthians, speaks of “we,” rather than “I.” The list of popes drawn up by St. Irenaeus conflicts with the one drawn up by Tertullian. Fr. Brown thought Rome had a “conservative” church from the start, slow to adopt the bishop-presbyters-deacons pyramid later described by Ignatius in A.D. 107. This is not to say he denied the Roman church’s primacy in the early Church; just the opposite, in fact. He suggested that a particular presbyter (as in St. Clement’s case) may have been a kind of first among equals within the Roman clergy - the full implications of his role becoming more explicit only gradually. Brown’s interpretation of the evidence is open to question, but even if he is correct, papal primacy and authority are in no way undermined. It took the Church four centuries to figure out exactly what she believed with regard to God and Jesus; it would be rather surprising if a developed doctrine of the papacy or episcopate had surfaced before the most fundamental questions were resolved.

Q I’m in the military. While visiting another base, I went to daily Mass. There were about five people there. I was expecting the priest to show up, but instead, a woman holding a container of consecrated hosts came in and placed it on the altar. I thought she was just setting up for the priest. To my shock, however, she started to say Mass. One of the attendees read the readings and she read the Gospel. She didn’t give a sermon nor say the Eucharistic Prayers. She only distributed communion as a Eucharistic minister would. Does the Church allow this? Please bear in mind this was a military chapel; there might have been a manpower problem.

A What you took part in wasn’t a Mass but a celebration of Holy Communion outside of Mass. This is an option when Mass is impossible, usually because no priest can be present. In the absence of a priest or deacon, an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist can lead this rite. In essence, it includes the Liturgy of the Word from the Mass of the day (a briefer rite can have just one reading) and the Liturgy of Communion, beginning from the Our Father. Only a priest or deacon can preach, so she didn’t preach; only a priest may pray the Eucharistic Prayer including the consecration, so that too was omitted.

Q Matthew 23:8-10 tells us not to call anyone “Father” or “Teacher,” or “Master.” That confuses me because when we talk to a priest, we call him “Father,” and even the word “pope,” translated literally means “father.” I attend a Baptist school and didn’t dare ask any of my teachers for an answer, because they would tell me that I’m Catholic and wrong. Please give me an answer. I feel uneasy calling a priest, “Father.”

A Just extend your thought one step further: “The word ‘dad’ means ‘father.’” What a dilemma! So what do you call that man who married your mom and lives in your house? Come to think of it, what do you call the man or woman who stands up at the front of your classroom and gets upset if you didn’t bring in your homework? Isn’t it funny that some teachers have a problem with a priest being called “Father,” but don’t find Jesus’ words applicable at all to themselves? What I’ve said doesn’t explain what Jesus did mean, but it does make clear what he was not saying. St. Paul himself was obviously aware of this, unless we want to think he was blatantly disobeying Jesus’ command, when he wrote, “in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15). The words of Scripture must be read in their context and according to the intentions of the writers. We need to look not just at Matthew 23:8-10, but 23:1-12. Is Jesus concerned here about the words we use? Or is He engaged in giving a lesson in humility? The essence of His message here is, “Don’t go around looking for recognition and empty praise.” What an easy gospel it would be if all we had to learn from this passage was to avoid a few words. Instead, our Lord is teaching us that “the greatest among you will be your servant” (Matthew 23:11).

Q One of my Evangelical friends asked me “Since we’re all called to be saints, how is it that the pope can canonize people as saints?” Where did this practice originate? What are the guidelines for canonization?

The Church has recognized as “saints” from her very beginnings those who gave heroic witness to Christ: first the martyrs (witnesses, in Greek) and then those whose entire lives bore witness to their faith.

A The term “saint” is really used in three different but interrelated ways among Catholics. First, in New Testament times, “saint” was a synonym for “Christian” (eg. Acts 9:13). The first Christians understood that their belonging to Christ conferred on them a certain sacredness. In this sense, every follower of Christ today too could be called a saint. Unfortunately, just as we speak sometimes of nominal Christians (or cultural Catholics), too many of us are mere nominal saints. Not too many of us truly reflect in our lives the holiness conferred on us by baptism. I imagine your friend has been able to observe this for himself; otherwise he would probably have joined us by now! The Church founded by Christ should be distinguishable by being one, holy, catholic and apostolic. What a shame that the one mark of the Church you and I can do most about - holiness - is often the least visible.

e