Since I am writing my Master’s Thesis about Pope Benedict XVI, I have scanned almost all of his major Theological work. They have contributed to the building of a strong foundation of the Catholic Faith especially as she traverses the winding waves of the modern times.
I would like to offer my review and clarification about the movie Two Popes which is a very powerful fictional movie. This movie has indeed explained Catholic Traditions well in the course of the conversations of Benedict XVI played by Anthony Hopkins and Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as played by Anthony Pryce.
At first glance to the overall purpose of the movie [and as the director would like to portray in the first encounter in the Pope’s Summer Residence] the image of Benedict depicts the very exact image he was portrayed in the Media during his pontificate; conservative, regal, talented and someone who has "come to love the job."
On the other hand, we were made to conclude that Jorge Bergoglio, the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, is a man of the people, the poor most especially and is living in silent protest to the opulent Rome and the bureaucracy of the Catholic Hierarchy.
At first glance we might stereotype the movie into believing that it follows the usual trajectory events in ordinary movies or documentaries of historical figures and events. In this movie, there is neither a villain nor a protagonist. Both the two Popes are protagonists.
The movie is a conversation of two protagonists who represents two sides of the aisle. What was clashing were not the persons but the ideals and pastoral contexts they both represent respectively. Benedict represents the conservative and the scholastic facade of the Church while Bergoglio represents the liberal and the pastoral side.
While this is the case in the real life of these two great men, it easier to understand the plot when we put it in the understanding of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council when the Church decided to reform, renew and to go back to her sources of authority and faith.
Benedict was a man of the council
Benedict belonged to the world that facilitated and discussed the details of Vatican II. In fact. Thomas Rauch wrote about Ratzinger’s contribution to the reform of the Curia and the notion of Collegiality during the first sessions and is secretly part in the formulation of the famous document Lumen Gentium (Light of the Peoples) which discussed the position of the Church in the modern times. Ratzinger was assistant to the Archbishop of Cologne in the whole council duration and he was contributory to the formulation of an equally important document Dei Verbum, (The Word of God) which discussed the role of Revelation and the Word of God.
Francis was a man of the people
Bergoglio, on the other hand, belonged to the receiving world of these reforms, and was a hard line in the implementation of the reforms of Vatican II on the grassroots as he was a young priest and superior of the Jesuits congregation in the embattled history of Argentina. This history of Argentina has also engendered new Theological schools of thought like that of the Liberation Theology which was dominant in Latin America since 1950. It was a theological movement that intervened in the political and social life of the people; a movement Ratzinger condemned in as a Theologian.
To compare the two men is entirely nonsensical because they have lived-in different worlds that constituted the reality of the Church. Both worlds are necessary. Both worlds define the Catholicity of the Church. I believe the movie never intended to compare them but to highlight the strengths as well as the shadows of these men. Unguided viewers might despise one and might love the other. Usually, Benedict gets the poorer opinion.
THE DESCENDING SMOKE
There is a certain part in the movie whereby, after praying, Benedict XVI puts the fire off the candle and the smoke didn’t go up but it went sideways. He did mention this to an observant Bergoglio "who had eyes for small details" when they were speaking at the Sistine Chapel.
It was a very cunning articulation of the real events of Benedict XVI’s election as Pope following the death of John Paul II in 2005.
Yes it did happen. But on a different light.
On the CNN documentary about the Last Days of Pope John Paul II:The Untold Stories by Dalia Galegher, it was narrated by the late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago that after the conclave, when the papal gentlemen were burning up the white smoke through the chimney to signal the news that a Pope has been elected, the white smoke backed down.
The smoke, which was to announce the election of Benedict XVI backed down and filled a quarter of the Sistine Chapel. This is of course due to the technical miscalculations on the installation of the makeshift chimney. There was not a conclave for the last 27 years because John Paul II reigned that long, and so the machine was antiquated and so it happened. There was miscalculations. The smoke backed down.
The Benedict in the movie interpreted this smoke not-going up as that of the offering of Cain being rejected by God.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE DOCUMENTARY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwTOLL404JA&t=1519s)
The real life Benedict XVI might have carried that image at the Sistine Chapel all this pontificate years and must have played a role in his discernment for resignation.
In that particular segment where Benedict disclosed his plan of renouncing the chair of St. Peter and the Bishopric of Rome to Cardinal Bergoglio, Cardinal Bergoglio quoted something very poetically morbid:
“We don’t come down from the Cross.”
These lines were the words of the bent John Paul II when he was asked if he was considering resignation due to his weakening health. It probably meant to set a comparison between John Paul II and Benedict XVI but no chance will this comparison thrive because John Paul II depended on Cardinal Ratzinger’s brilliance when he was still alive.
Ratzinger delivered the Theological and Moral vision of John Paul II.
Ratzinger delivered a Catechism for the Churuch during the reign of John Paul II.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI both grew up in a context of extreme liberalism and unrest. John Paul grew up in Poland and Bavaria at the height of communist role and BenediCt grew up in a Nazi context. This is what they shared in common, and so they understood where the Church should stand at the turn of the 21st century.
The conclave of 2005 needed to elect someone who could not be crushed by the weight of comparison to the achievements of John Paul II. Hence they elected Ratzinger, who though may not be a manager but a hard line Theologian.
Ratzinger as a Nazi
He was definitely not in favor of the vision of Adolf Hitler. While he was enlisted into Nazi army as mail boy and non-combatant during the Hitler’s advances to Europe and the war, he was helpless and so opted to go out and finish his seminary formation.
The Nazi sentiment on Ratzinger was a sentiment born out of hatred to Nazi regime’s brutality but Ratzinger, being an intelligent man of his time, did not wanted to be part of the wrongdoings especially the murders.
The Two Popes is a good movie to educate modern Catholic about the Papacy, the Hierarchy and the Politics of the Church. It is also a good movie to convey the Theological significance of the positions of the Church on variety of issues. In order to understand the world today, we have to understand The Two Popes.
Yorumlar