Netflix's 'Midnight Mass' Is Incisive Religious Horror - The Atlantic
By: Matthew J. Cressler (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Midnight Mass is a morally urgent critique of how faith can fuel everyday cruelty and violence.
By Matthew J. Cressler
October 25, 2021Share
This story contains spoilers for the Netflix series Midnight Mass.
The Exorcist is a film I've long loved because it raised the bar not just for horror, but also for movies that explore questions of faith and doubt, good and evil, life and death. I know all of its beats by heart, but when I recently rewatched the 1973 classic, the ending hit differently. The movie concludes with an exorcism, naturally. Chris MacNeil has brought her daughter, Regan, to a host of medical professionals in a desperate attempt to save her from what turns out to be a demonic possession. But the only person who can save the girl, it seems, is a priest. The camera lingers on the mother's exhausted face as two priests close the door to her daughter's bedroom and go to work.
This is a trope in supernatural horror. Catholics, and priests in particular, signal to both characters and audiences that true evil is afoot—then they defeat it. This dynamic has troubled me more and more over the years, as a born-and-raised and still-practicing Catholic, and as a religious-studies scholar. In light of new details about real-life horrors such as clerical sex abuse and the colonial violence of residential schools, the dissonance of seeing priests portrayed primarily as genre heroes is striking. What about a horror movie where the Catholic Church supplies not the good guys but monsters? This sort of story would speak a necessary truth and deliver a morally urgent message about the dark side of faith.
Then I came across the Netflix limited series Midnight Mass , released late last month. Set in a fishing community on a small island, the show centers on the miraculous and ominous events that take place after a young priest arrives to tend to the town's only church. The attention to religious detail is astounding, and is neither accidental nor incidental to the story itself. The creator, writer, and director, Mike Flanagan, has reflected on how "deeply personal" the show's horror is to him. Much like the protagonist Riley Flynn (played by Zach Gilford), Flanagan was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy. Midnight Mass is religious horror that treats its subject with reverence while, at the same time, offering one of the most thoughtful and thorough critiques of religion you're likely to encounter in popular culture.
Read: 25 of the best horror films you can watch, ranked by scariness
The series touches on many themes, but its terror is grounded in the violence and cruelty of its religious characters. The charismatic Father Paul Hill (Hamish Linklater) is unwittingly a conduit for evil. We learn in Episode 3 that he is actually Crockett Island's elderly Monsignor Pruitt, who was believed to have fallen ill after a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Father Paul tells the congregation that he's the monsignor's replacement, knowing they wouldn't believe the truth: that he encountered a winged monster on his travels that drank his blood, then fed him its own blood to restore his health and youth.
Where viewers might see a vampire, the priest sees "an angel" and a way to work miracles in his hometown, so he brings it back with him. He laces the church's Communion wine—which, for Catholics, is the actual blood of Christ—with monster blood, and we watch as the old grow young, as sight is restored to the bifocaled, and as a teen girl gets up from her wheelchair and walks. There's a catch, though. If you happen to die, you come back to life with an insatiable bloodlust and a fatal relationship to light. This comes to a climax during the midnight service on Easter morning when first the church and then the entire town consumes itself. Literally.
Midnight Mass also lays bare the mundane maliciousness of religious exclusion, embodied most keenly in Bev Keane, the self-appointed lay administrator of St. Patrick's Church. Courtesy of a harrowing performance by Samantha Sloyan, Bev brings to life the callousness of people who view everyone around them with judgment and condemnation. She plays no small part in propelling her pastor and a number of parishioners to commit atrocities, and call them right and just.
The creators insist that the show isn't intended to be anti-Catholic or anti-religious. Flanagan has written that he's long contemplated questions about "how fundamentalist thinking could permeate and corrupt any belief system … How easily faith could be weaponized against the faithful." This is a common reading of the series—that it isn't a critique of religion so much as a critique of religion gone wrong. This interpretation is reinforced in the last two episodes. Horrors ensue as some parishioners drink from poisoned plastic cups and are reborn as vampires. Others, refusing to do so, become food. This seems to draw a hard line between "good" and "bad" religion, as does Monsignor Pruitt's redemption in the end.
But this limited reading doesn't do the series justice. Carefully cordoning off its criticism to only "cults" or fanatics is a mistake and allows well-meaning religious people to avoid self-reflection and perhaps feel more comfortable with the series than they should. (And I'd include myself among them, though I'd certainly be on Bev Keane's chopping block.) This is precisely what the word cult does in the first place: Religious-studies scholars have argued that the label works to shield so-called mainstream religions from justified criticism. Instead, the show illustrates the insidious dangers that can arise from seemingly "good" religious communities.
I agree with the creators. The series is neither anti-Catholic nor anti-religious in the narrow, bad-faith sense that those terms imply. Nevertheless, Midnight Mass offers an essential critique of Catholics, the Catholic Church, and religion more broadly. It succeeds at this not despite, but because of its careful and caring portrayal of the religious lives of Crockett Island's Catholics. The show is at its most incisive when it illuminates how frighteningly close otherwise ordinary priests and parishioners are to indescribable horrors.
The series is daring enough to dwell on how miracles and monsters go hand in hand. Whether or not it was intentional, scattered throughout its seven episodes are glimpses of the logic, choices, and actions that drive real-life Catholic horror—even if sexual abuse, racist violence, and cultural genocide aren't directly addressed at any point. Catholics don't hold a monopoly on any of these evils. But that doesn't mean that they are anomalous or irrelevant for understanding what it has meant to be Catholic, institutionally and individually.
As experts have argued, there are distinctly religious dimensions to violations committed by Catholics, and Midnight Mass hints at its edges. The most chilling instance of this is the line Bev Keane delivers as she encourages others to aid and abet the priest's monstrosity. "The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord, your God," she says, quoting Deuteronomy, "that man shall die." Her words are a reminder of how deference to the male authority of the priest has been historically used to justify both abuses and cover-ups.
Midnight Mass
The series uses the ritual of Communion to convey how religious communities can build walls between the chosen and those considered outsiders. Not all Crockett residents are Catholic. As the "good" Catholics are transformed and reborn, those who refused Communion are left to fend for themselves. The few heroes still fighting at the end include Erin Greene (Kate Siegel), a domestic-abuse survivor who loses her unborn child midway through the show; the Muslim Sheriff Hassan (Rahul Kohli); and Sarah Gunning (Annabeth Gish), a lesbian doctor who has left the Church. Once again, Bev says the quiet part out loud. "Those who've been coming to church and taking Communion, they have nothing to fear tonight," she announces as she lets loose the vampires. "As for the rest of them … let God sort them out." The final two episodes could even be read, albeit with some stretching, as an allegory for Christianity's bloody expansion. The church destroys itself before wreaking havoc on the rest of the world.
To say all this is not to be anti-Catholic. It's to tell the truth. When faced with the reality of religious violence, the instinct of many Americans is to unquestioningly defend the notion of "good" religion. The Ku Klux Klan isn't really Christian, we might tell ourselves. We might take comfort in the idea that the white Catholics and evangelicals who joined others in storming the U.S. Capitol weren't good Christians. But in doing so, we risk ignoring the crimes committed every day in the name of faith. Religious people would do well to reckon with the complicity of their traditions and institutions in the sins of the world. After all, as scholars have shown, the KKK and Christian nationalists, too, think of themselves and their works as good and religious.
Read: A Christian insurrection
Writing on clerical sex abuse, the historian Robert Orsi insists that scholars must recognize "how religion is actually lived in everyday life, with its intimate cruelties, its petty as well as profound humiliations, its sadism and its masochism, its abuses of power, and its impulses to destroy and dominate." They should be attentive, in other words, to the Bev Keanes and the Monsignor Pruitts and the angel-monsters. Midnight Mass gets this. It's the first Catholic horror I've seen that does.
Tags
Who is online
423 visitors
Havent seen the show, dont intend to see it , but just reading this summary it seems ludicrous to me to see the writer claim the show is not anti-Catholic.
I have been a Catholic, although not always a fully practicing catholic, all my life and have never seen or heard of anything that would make me think this is an attitude to be found within the Catholic Church.
Catholic clergy have been a punching bag for secularists for a long long time. Nothing new here.
There are also good faithful Catholics represented - those who saw the atrocities and tried to stop them.
Complete, defaming, nonsense.
I have to disagree, John. Churches, Catholic and otherwise, have been complicit in allowing, excusing, and covering up sexual abuse, using their religious authority to do so. Churches, Catholic and otherwise, kidnapped generations of children from indigenous families in the US and Canada, and the extent of the harm they caused has only recently started coming to light for the public at large, although I'm sure indigenous families have always known. This was done in the name of benefitting those children.
The movie recognizes that not all churches, nor yet all churchgoers, aid and abet evil. But it is an undeniable truth that some have, and do.
Public schools have been complicit in allowing , excusing and covering up sexual abuse. Sexual abuse has nothing to do with religion.
You are an atheist that despises organized religion . Let's just be honest.
Yes, they have on occasion. But John, the fact that it occurs in public schools does not negate the fact that it has also occurred in churches, sometimes with the approval (by way of blaming and siding against the victims) of the abuser's congregation and superiors within the church. In the case of the Catholic church, it was a multi-national conspiracy to cover up the abuse, with the knowledge and approval of the highest within the church's hierarchy.
No, I don't despise organized religion. I despise abusive organized religion.
Stop trying to sat that it happens elsewhere so it isn't a Catholic problem. Its one thing to have an abuse clergy but its entirely different when the church attacks the victims while they shuffle the priest around to a different parish to do it again.
It does have something to do with the RCC when they have been aiding and abetting the abuse and then looking the other way or actively hiding the perpetrators. I was raised Catholic in the Cleveland diocese and I saw this abuse. I personally suffered from it, so dont try to gaslight me and tell me that it doesn't happen.
The Catholic church is neck deep in it and still trying to deny it.
The Catholic church is only a target for secularists and atheists because may of us were raised catholic and we saw the abuse, hypocrisy and lies first hand. Its perfectly normal to speak out and try to stop it, while you seem intent on defending it by any means necessary.
I have an uncle who is Opus Dei, 4th degree K-of-C, a deacon and the biggest hypocrite that I have ever met.
Can I do an anecdote too ? It seems some people think personal anecdotes are as good as facts. I was an altar boy for 5 years in the 1960s, that means I saw the parish priests behind the scenes so to speak, several times a week. I never had a priest say or do anything inappropriate to me in those 5 years , nor in my high school years at an all boys Catholic high school, so that must mean nothing was happening to anyone.
I have never said it doesnt happen in the Catholic Church. What I have said is that child sexual abuse happens anywhere where men have unsupervised or unattended access to children. This includes the Catholic Church, protestant churches, public and private schools, youth groups, scouting groups, athletic clubs, choirs, camps, and most of all, within families. More child sexual abuse takes place within families than in any other setting. And believe me, it is covered up there.
I understand that there are people who turn on the Catholic Church, and other churches, because they feel like they were betrayed by adults. Ok, I get it and that is a shame, but that is a portion of the people, not everyone.
-
Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males (newsweek.com)
Completely agree. I've read this article several times now. Even watched the first two episodes to better understand what the author might be saying before I couldn't stomach it anymore. The main question all this leaves me with is, if this show led him to write this, I have to wonder what his parish is like. This show is most incisive when it illuminates how frighteningly close otherwise ordinary priests and parishioners are to indescribably horrors? Seriously. Just what the hell is going on in his church?
I'm no fan of the RCC. They lost their way a long time ago and is now mostly incorrect traditions handed down over time. But this is clearly a hit piece on religion as a whole in spite of claims to the contrary. It alludes to the idea there is some special danger in religion when the truth is that humans can use any system to do unspeakable horrors. There's no shortage of history that proves this. The Romans, French Revolution, the Red Guard in China's cultural revolution, Pol Pot's killing fields, the Rape of Nanking and Communism in general just to name a few among thousands.
Overall, I find the article ridiculous. It seems to leave one with the impression that the religious in this country are just a hair breath away from some religious version of the movie "The Purge' and who knows what's stopping the religious from morphing into real life monsters. What's supposed to be his proposed solution? We don't know as he never really spells it out, but we see hints of it.
The example he uses to illustrate the point is from the actual show. Literally, from the show. I suppose the idea must be that some other, more "mundane" evil could result from the Communion sacrament rather than participants of Communion turning into actual vampires and slaughtering non-Communion participants in job lots, but I wonder what he thinks that might be? A couple walking at night, beset by Communion participants and, if they don't partake themselves they beat them to death?
Or is his intent simply to say that those who participate in Communion are by default creating the wall and is therefore evil? If so, who's to say which side of that wall is actually doing the evil? If that is his point, then what he's really saying is that Communion is responsible for the wall, when really, the wall was already there by what each one believes. That wall between the one who believes Christ died for our sins and the one who doesn't believe in God. Communion doesn't create it. It was already there.
So, again, what seems to be his overall point? While he doesn't come out and say it, it seems to be that religious belief should not be the guide of one's life. It's okay as a hobby, maybe, but as long as you don't set your morals by it, you'll be fine. Anything else and you'll turn into a vampire.
You've read the article. Have you seen the show?
Do you deny that there are some religious people who use religion as a way to exclude? That some religions, including the RCC, have played a part in atrocities, and used religion to justify those atrocities?
That there are some who don't?
That we should be discerning regarding which are which?
According to whom?
As I indicated in my comment, I watched the first two episodes. Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think watching the rest will change my view.
No, but that is not really very meaningful. For instance, do you deny that there are some (fill in your ideology or anything else) who use it to exclude? Let me provide you an example. Do you deny that atheists or other humanists who use their beliefs to exclude the religious, especially Christians from the public sphere? By public sphere, I mean public property. Say, a cross on the side of the road where a loved one has died? Or maybe some woke person who's organization asks all white people to leave campus for a day to provide a "safe space" for non whites?
Again, no, I don't deny that but, again, not very meaningful. Do you deny that Communist regimes have killed way more people in an astonishingly short time period and a much higher death count compared to religion? Do you deny the orgy of revenge killings during the French revolution? Do you deny that the slaughter between the Hutu and Tutsi was mostly about class warfare? If you're not getting the point, it is that the common denominator is people, not systems. People will use any excuse that suits their purpose. Trying to make it seem there is something special about religion is disingenuous.
Yeah, but again, not really helpful, since that can be said of a lot of people in which religion is not a factor. And if you insist on sticking with religion, if it were some significant number we'd see a lot more WBC types out there than what we do.
And how are you going to do that? Are you volunteering to be on the morality squad of whatever ideology you hold to to seek out those who don't believe what you do? Are you going to, I don't know, maybe ban Communion in churches because someone might perceive it as exclusionary? What might you do with people who believe some people are going to Hell?
It isn't about "whom". It is simply about what the Bible states about doctrine. If you're one of those that thinks the Bible can say whatever anyone wants it to say, there would be no point in going further with an explanation.
Wow. Ok.
Well, it's pretty easy, from where I sit. If I'm told to kill somebody because God wants me to, I'll probably not do it. If I'm told to ostracize somebody, because they believe differently from me, I'll probably not do that, either.
Easy peasy.
If only it were for everybody.
Sure, Drakk. Because I've ever said anything to indicate I would ban a religion.
The Bible wrote itself? Interesting.
You know, it strikes me that you feel quite free to criticize the RCC, but are pissed at anybody else who does. And moreover, you don't like them mostly on procedural differences, which is minutia, but don't want the big stuff like genocide called out.
Interesting.
If that is the actual plot line of the show, I dont see how anyone could even try to defend that as not being anti-Catholic.
Not Holy Communion per se. A tainted version of it.
I went to the trouble to explain why I don't think it is very meaningful, within the context of the subject, anyway and asked you the same question you asked me. I gave you the courtesy of an answer. Your reply seems more avoidance than anything.
I see. And you see a lot of that sort of thing going around, do you? Churches telling people to go out in the name of God and kill people? If they are they don't seem to be listening. Exactly how many congregations out there tell their members we need to kill gay people, for instance? Strike that. Just give me your best guess. A percentage, if you will.
Sure, most people wouldn't. There would have to be a reason beyond simply someone telling us to. Of course, in discussing ostracizing we would necessarily have to have some sort of example, wouldn't we? For instance, how much access to you and your circle of friends would a white supremacist have? Someone who advocated for letting children have sex with adults if they want to? Would you ostracize such people from your life? Would you ditch your friends if they accepted such people? I know I would, and not because someone told me to.
You aren't the subject of the question. The article is, and therefore the question dealt with the statement "The series uses the ritual of Communion to convey how religious communities can build walls between the chosen and those considered outsiders" in the article. He must have had some point for saying it other than suggesting "Because it can turn people into vampires." Unfortunately for our understanding, he doesn't explain it with anything other than Catholics actually turning into vampires because it somehow builds walls.
What we are left with is that, in some way, he believes the practice of Communion is bad because it can build walls. So, the question wasn't about what you would do with religion but, rather, what good would discernment do you, being a non believer? If you, or anyone, discern that he's right and that Communion is a negative because it builds walls what will your discernment do to correct the situation?
More, what right would you have to even think the correction would need to be made? Correctly understood, Communion is a statement between oneself and God. It isn't intended for anything else. It certainly isn't for the purpose of making a statement about what someone else is doing or what they believe. But what we get from the author is a ludicrously fictional explanation of why it's bad.
I don't understand the connection you've attempted here. If you write an article about something, it doesn't really matter who you are personally as far as meaning goes. The words you put down, assuming you're not insane, have a definite meaning. There is something you intend to convey. Some thing you want the reader to understand. If someone comes behind you, meaning you're not there to defend what you wrote and claims what you said means something other than what you intended, there's undoubtedly going to be someone else that will call them on it.
It's no different with the Bible. The writers had something specific in mind when they wrote it. Quite a lot of it is hard to understand because we aren't the audience they were writing to. We aren't the culture they were writing to. It wasn't written in our language. Their idioms and manner of speech wasn't our idioms or manner of speech.
But it isn't impossible to understand what the writers intended to say, especially the NT, since we have the writings of early church fathers and other such resources. We have archaeologists that study cultures and strive to put them into context and so on. People who study every aspect of past civilizations. The idea that a bunch of people who just happen to understand biblical Greek just take a codex and do the best they can with it is far from the truth. These are people who've studied their entire lives about many relevant subjects and thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare in order to come up with a translation. So, we have a pretty accurate idea of what the original Autograph actually says.
Actually, the intent was not to criticize but, rather, to show that I wasn't speaking as a Catholic. Further, I'm not pissed. Annoyed, maybe. I find articles like this which suggests that, concerning Catholics, "The show is at its most incisive when it illuminates how frighteningly close otherwise ordinary priests and parishioners are to indescribable horrors," annoying because they are so obviously ridiculous. One may as well say we are frighteningly close to a world wide zombie outbreak and most of us are going to die, or become zombies ourselves at any moment.
Wrong on both counts. I don't like the RCC, meaning the organized church itself, not necessarily its membership precisely because it isn't minutia, but rather, outright heresy concerning much of their doctrine. I feel it would be a waste of my time to explain any of it, though, to a person who doesn't think beyond their own belief that it's all nonsense so it doesn't matter what anyone believes is correct doctrine.
Further, no one can accuse me legitimately of denying religion doesn't have its share of atrocities. I stated such when you asked me the question, but apparently the answer wasn't what you want to be true concerning what I think. Apparently, you believe I want to pretend it never happened. I can't stop you from doing that, so I won't bother.
Outside of Hollywood, what would a tainted version be and do you have examples of it?
That's because you're capable of thinking for yourself and not some mindless robot that only follows commands given.
According to some, god wrote it. Interesting, or delusional?
If you want something literal, how about the Jonestown Flavoraid? Oh, of course, it was meant to kill those who ingested it, but it certainly served an evil purpose, yes?
Of course, the series is symbolic, so outside of Hollywood, how about witch trials? The Inquisition? The KKK? 9-11? The Taliban? I can think of a lot of examples where religion gone awry has been used to justify some pretty horrible things. And no, it's not just the Catholic Church, nor Christianity in general.
The plot of this show essentially slanders the Catholic Church if it has a plot line suggesting Holy Communion can turn people into vampires.
I dont care how you try to pretty this up Sandy.
Communion itself is a symbolically vampiric (and cannibalistic) act: drinking the "blood of Christ" and "eating of his flesh."
Are you saying it hasn't happened? It has, and in recent history. Boarding schools for indigenous children buried a lot of indigenous children, even in the 20th century. Multiple articles about them have been seeded on this site. Death wasn't the only thing those children faced - they were forbidden their languages and religions. Those schools were an attempt to kill a culture, and they were mostly church-operated. The Magdalene laundries in Ireland weren't really a happy place for unwed mothers and their children, and the last one closed in, I believe, 1996.
Likewise, I'll ask if you see much of this:
Oh, of course, crosses on public property. Odd how Baphomets don't get the same consideration. You complain that Christians are excluded, but as soon as it's clear they'll be included as soon as other religions are, too, they're happy with keeping their religion on private property.
Most wouldn't, and, BTW, the series acknowledges that, by making it clear that those in the know were operating in secrecy, because they knew people wouldn't agree. But some would. Do you have many Amish where you live? Shunning is a thing. It is common for political candidates to advertise how Christian they are, because they know that society doesn't trust atheists. That's a type of ostracism, too.
Can, but doesn't have to. If you'd finished the series, you'd know that there were Communion takers who saw the problems, and opposed the evil. The Communion itself isn't the problem; the religious tribalism is.
It's fairly simple. You say that it doesn't matter what a person says, it's what the Bible says that matters. Drakk, I'm not sure if you know this, but the Bible was written by people. And it matters who those people were, just as it matters who's interpreting their words.
Are they? Quite a few people were killed because they didn't follow the "right" religion in the first half of the 20th century, by a nation which proclaimed it had God on its side. Many churches in Germany were complicit in the Holocaust.
Yeah, I was raised to think it's heresy, too, but, being committed to the idea of religious freedom, heresy never really bothered me.
Excuse me if I dont accept your atheist interpretation.
Ok, so it's made pretty clear in the series that just taking Communion does not turn people into vampires. To turn people into vampires in the series, the priest (a vampire) adds vampire blood to the Communion wine without the congregation's knowledge.
Actually, that would be a Catholic interpretation. Transubstantiation.
It's not an "atheist" interpretation John. It's simply an objective one showing a parallel. Do you not see drinking blood as being vampiric in nature or by act? Or that eating "human flesh" is cannibalism?
According to Catholicism, it's not even symbolic. The wafer is the body of Christ, and the wine is his blood.
I'm sorry but I seem to be missing your point. In what way do you connect these events with Communion?
It is a spiritual, not a biological, distinction.
As has been pointed out, it's not just Communion. Communion is a symbol for religion, in general.
John and Sandy, I watched the entire series. I was equally split on its merits and repulsion. On one hand the show wanted to intimate quality faith at work in the lives of ordinary, dutiful people. A leader who cares. A leader who ministers. A leader who counsels.
On the other-hand, the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church, and "silent" Churches have caused criticisms of their methods to spill out into the marketplace, because irreligious folks wonder about claims of wholesomeness that openly allow for childhood sexual abuse, parasitical-ism, and "big lies" amongst people who profess higher (highest) qualities and standards.
It is insufferable that a pedophile should be allowed "to live" amongst innocent children! It is a horrible inducement of the 'body' of believers that pedophiles wear priestly vestments, move among the faithful, and have "immunity" from the cleansing work of the Spirit long before long-lasting, permanent damages are done!
The Church(es) is in manifest error to ignore taking action on that front! Thus, the 'body' is mocked, diminished, scandalized, and disgraced because of it. Same with any grouping of evangelicals who willing support "big lies" which damage innocent people who want no part in it! The Evangelical (Right) church stands by silently or aggressively assents to removal of truth from the halls of truth, justice, and the Way.
While I don't think that's quite what the author is intending to say, whatever he's trying to do gets lost in the horrible analogy he attempts.
This would pretty much be the reason why whatever point he's trying to make fails so badly. First, there's not a single case of the "religious horror" genre that actually treats its subject with reverence that I can think of. The goal of most of them is to fascinate the audience with evil, not direct them to God. You know, the actual subject of religion? The rest actually have God as the bad guy who's about to destroy the world but doesn't in the end because the heroes, who usually don't have or want anything to do with God, does something that changes God's mind. Usually in a manner that has to twist what the Bible actually says and means.
So, essentially, the author simply states an oxymoron and claims it makes a valid statement about the state of the Catholic church and religion in general.
Agreed.
I believe Father Paul was a good man, for the most part. He certainly helped Riley and Joe, at first, anyway, to fight their problems with alcohol. And he was understanding that neither of them were religious, and was willing to work through those problems without insisting that they do so within a religious framework. He demonstrated grace.
He was a good man who stumbled (and what a stumble), but he was redeemed in the end.
And there were plenty of churchgoers who were good people, and resisted what they discovered was happening. Erin, Riley's parents, Mildred (the doctor's mother)... And many who didn't resist, as they came to see what they'd done, were remorseful, which is a step toward redemption.
As I said to Sandy yesterday, there is a difference between a story that uses a religious figure such as a priest or a bishop as a villain because of human villainy, and a story that uses the religions dogma as the villain. If you attack the dogma, such as in saying that communion turns people into vampires, you have slandered the religion.
I think I am done wasting my time on this seed.
I have been on NT for 10 years now, and it has always been anti-Catholic.
I don't really see that. I see some as having misguided followers of God about to destroy...something. Maybe the world, depending on the movie.
Take "Carrie", for instance. Her mom is a religious nut who emotionally abuses her daughter, finally killing her for being a "witch". That's not God destroying anything. It's a misguided follower.
God's not destroying anything in this series. Misguided followers are.
I don't know I would use dogma, as I looked up the definition and I wouldn't call what Catholics believe as positively true...
I could say the same for all religion.
I can only shake my head as still, this is only a fictional tv show. Not a documentary.
And, we see it occurring in popular culture. My television is 'lit' right now with (CNN) reporting "WAPO: FBI WAS WARNED ABOUT PLANS TO TARGET LAWMAKERS ON JAN 6."
There are parallels: Small, insular groups, that want to take over the whole (body) of a nation through infection of its governmental institutions. And, the warnings are not being properly heeded, and the silence (from the other 'dwellers') is deafening. That is, until physical death shows up knocking at their doors!
That's vague enough to be interpreted in different ways. "Body," flesh, not much difference symbolically.
Hence my analogy with vampirism.
Okay, then would not the author's point be that religion is what actually creates walls between us and if so, wouldn't the solution be to abandon it?
That's actually a great point, and, more or less, what I have been trying to get at. You put it so much better. Everything that's being claimed about religion in this discussion is being put at the feet of religion, even though, historically, people of every kind have done the same sorts of things. There's nothing outstanding about religion in the context we are speaking in. The villainy, as you say, is in the human, not the dogma.
And, like you, I'm about done here. I think I have the flu and this is taking way too much time. Nice to find common ground for a change, though.
The reviewer? I don't see him recommending abandoning religion.
The screenwriter? Not really. As I've said several times here, there were people within the church who recognized the danger and opposed it, but did not abandon their religion. For the most part, those who chose to become vampires, even the priest, regretted what they'd done. The only one who didn't was the one who was most gleefully holier-than-thou before becoming a vampire.
I'd say the point is that religion CAN create walls (but doesn't HAVE to), and that we must guard against allowing it to do so.
But what does that actually mean in the context of the author's review or your own views? The author states "The series uses the ritual of Communion to convey how religious communities can build walls between the chosen and those considered outsiders." You stated "As has been pointed out, it's not just Communion. Communion is a symbol for religion, in general."
In spite of the differences what the wafer and the wine literally constitute between Catholics and protestants, the performance of the sacrament has a definite meaning. The author appears to suggest that the sacrament puts walls between people. You seem to consider the sacrament as representing religion as a whole, which makes more sense, as far as it goes. It doesn't make sense to single out the sacrament when other beliefs are considered more divisive, such as the belief that some will go to hell if they don't repent and accept Christ as savior. The relevance of this is that real Christianity rests on beliefs that can't be changed and still be considered Christianity. Not Biblical Christianity anyway.
So, again and in light of all this, what does it mean, practically, to claim "the point is that religion CAN create walls (but doesn't HAVE to), and that we must guard against allowing it to do so"? How are we to prevent these walls without changing what Christianity is? I'm asking for a practical application of your statement for the purpose of understanding what you mean.
It's a TV series, Drakk. I doubt it was meant to be only a metaphor for dangers within religion. It's also meant to be entertaining. It needs a story people can and will want to follow.
To me, it means, when your pastor/priest/rabbi/political leader tells you to do something to harm others in service of ideology, think long and hard before you do it. That runs the gambit from "don't murder or commit genocide" all the way down to "don't boycott a business just because it's owned by Muslims" and "don't make a big stink about being wished a happy holiday rather than a merry Christmas."
Because the basis for any religion is spiritual, thus non material, it is impossible for any religion to defend itself from a story where the religious clergy are "evil" and abuse supernatural power .
This inability to create a defense from such charges is likely why we dont see more movies attacking religion. It simply isnt a "fair" fight.
John, it's a metaphor, mmkay? Moreover, it's one you've already said you won't watch, but insist is a sweeping condemnation of the Catholic church when it isn't.
As far as what it represents, please do tell us what is the spiritual defense for covering up thousands of incidents of sexual abuse, or for sending thousands of indigenous children to an early grave after denying them their spirituality? BTW, I am well aware, as I'm sure you are, that the Catholic church is not the only one complicit in either of those crimes, and I am also aware that there are churches and religious people who had nothing to do with them.
I would not object to a movie where a Catholic priest, or bishop or even the pope was evil in human terms. Same with an evangelical pastor, or a rabbi, or a Muslim cleric. Human beings can do evil.
I do object to a movie where religious figures do supernatural evil, because religion cannot defend itself from such charges , religious belief operates in the supernatural realm.
Some clergy are religious stumblingblocks to their flock, which is a thing according to scripture describing the supernatural. I'd say that's supernatural evil.
I actually think the character Bev Keane is a bit scarier than the nun.
Sister Eleanor, Is that you?
I watched the (entire) series and though I enjoy a good vampire story equally so I was repulsed by the insidiousness of the "matron" quoting scripture in perversity (to cover up an abundance of sins being committed on the town and island people). I thought the ending was 'fitting.' The "doers of evil" were purged and perished in the purity of light.
What the vampire-demon in the show did at first by not draining it's elderly prey was unorthodoxed, especially because it seemed to not be a leader in form or attitude in the island piece. I mean it has wings and yet chose to only depend on distant islanders (doomed to fail) to carry its purposes to the mainland. I repeat, the vampire-demon has fully operational wings.
Why did it not navigate to shore in the 'off periods' while the plot thickened? It was a dumb beast!
In sum. The show reminded me of those 'slasher' movies where the moral failings of youths means the lights 'go dark' and the music rises and its 'SLASH/SLASH/HASH Time' for those who are caught in the teeth of their 'vitals' exposed to someone else. Moreover, the series reeks of "The Children of the Corn" scripture twisting and perversion.
She was an excellent villainess. I hope the actress is remembered during awards season.
I found the monologues to be a bit tiring, especially the one by one of the heroines toward the end. Overall, though, it was a good scary watch - not too gory, not torture porn (which I can't handle), but just a good twist on a vampire story.
Overall, the question becomes would I care for a Midnight Mass second season? (After all, we did not see the beleaguered and tattered-wing vampire-demon's crash and burn or demise.) Yes, I would be curious to see how the island repopulates from a young boy and girl survivor (with a demon-host afoot)!
As for the "villainess" execution of her 'part' it was tediously perfect. But I do think the script had weaknesses and loose ends trailing off into nothingness. For example, Who burns down everything on an island in a single night when the very nature of its existence is shade and darkness. Talk about lacking foresight!
Thus, the female lead may suffer at award time, because the movie's cinematographers (the first 'full-frontal burn" scene) outshone its script-writers! —In my opinion.
Well, that wasn't the intention. They intended to leave a few buildings intact.
I imagine the survivors would go to the mainland after being rescued.
The 'sleeping quarters,' which their detractors torched just about sun-up. It was almost as inept as the dumb demon on the ground feeding itself from 'prey' that was shredding its wings. Grossly 'sensual'? They had no covering; and, the "villain-ness" looked a mess there scratching at the dirt on the ground for enough to hide in!
The 'vamps' intended to take boats to the mainland before sunrise, but the good-guys burned them too (along with everything else that was a-glowing!)
(I will share more of the metaphors I gleaned during watching the show on my return-out for now.)
Meryl Streep in Doubt (2008)
If this movie series is illustrative of anything is how pseudo-leaders and proper leaders can form cults just with the forces of presence and rhetoric. That it takes strong minds to push back on malformed ideas, and toxic rhetoric, and to speak up against 'wrongness.'
Just so. It's a tendency we all need to guard against.
Then there is this curious nature of a servant of God being taken 'in' by a demon! Where is the 'discernment' in that? It's definitely deficient!
The portions that I truly 'enjoyed' about this movie, 'Midnight Mass' were the 'set-down (problem-solving) meetings' where priest and men related to each other as men earnestly dealing with personal and social issues. Those were 'serviceable' and wholesome in the scheme of the show. It illustrated the Church well.
OMG people, it is just a tv show...
Some people are quite happy to attack atheists, but need to remove the beams from their own eyes.
Actually, it is Hollywood interacting with the Church. Hollywood, above all, knows when it lifts the hammer to strike the Church and vice-versa the Church knows similarly when it takes swings at Hollywood from its pulpits and writings.
For my part, I am saddened the Church deserves these 'hits.' I can see it crystal clear: Something toxic, sickening and pus-filled is happening in the evangelical sphere of the Church in the United States. Of course, it needs to be exposed, remarked on, and inevitably productions of all kinds are par for the course.
Still, in all this, the good people who are remarkably patient and engaging with both Hollywood and Church have to be acknowledged. For the good they do in calling for calm.
Well, you know how defensive some people get when they think religion is being mocked or criticized in any way. But if I wanted to see religious horror, I'd just walk into a church
You're not an aggressive atheist, are you?
Clarify what you mean by "aggressive."
Be civil, please.
I'm still waiting for clarification before I respond.
This line is devastating in the series. To the informed it sticks out- red-hot - blazing because it audaciously calls the faithful to forsake their consciences and yield to the authority and perspective of another (the Leader). In this case, the unwittingly "corrupted," man of God.
Religion that is positive informs its faithful ("the sheep") to follow ("the shepherd) with continuous prayers for discernment.
A powerful word, discernment. Why? Because when a leader as Shepherd errs from a mission of good that is both definable and reasonable; that Leader needs the faithful to gather around him or her in hopes of restoration or possibly removal.
Something of restoration and removal occurred in the Roman Catholic Church (due to the illness and deformation of ministry) when Pope Benedict abdicated in 2013.
It was unheard of, in my lifetime anyway of 60 years, that a Bishop of Rome, the Pope, told to us as being selected by God to lead should not serve out his ministry until death. (I do not know if all Bishops of Rome have died in office.) Yet, the good won out and the Roman Catholic Church repeated its papal selection process - thus receiving a man of well-being, good health, and importantly sound mind.
SPECIAL NOTE: This can not be overstated, as we watch the Evangelical "church" hold onto a jackal as leader who intends great harm to our democracy under his "watch."
It's a warning. A warning which seems to be pissing some people off, which is very telling.
As a warning (to the flock) it should be reflected upon and heeded.
I do not understand how or why the Roman Catholic Church does not handedly deal with its pedophile priests dilemma. There exist a dichotomy that should not be! That is, the Church is support "mecca" for children; and, proper parents are dedicated to protecting their offspring. How is pedophilia a running 'joke' in plain sight of religious leaders?
In the movie, Midnight Mass, it is the two altar boys who first learn of the priest double-dealing with the communion sacrament. One boy watches as it is 'spiked.' He could not doubt his eyes and yet he remains mute to the rest of the flock! (That youth is supposed to be as dedicated to the well-being of the flock as he is to the well-being of the priest.)
"See Something - Say Something."
In California, just now and for months now, there are ads requesting adults affected by sexual abuse in the Catholic Church to come forward for lawsuit relief.
Well now I am interested so I will be watching the series to see why this is so controversial (other than the fact that it has an uncomplimentary religious theme).
I might have to check it out too.
The show is very well nuanced. It will evoke much in you and others.
Other than that, it's not especially controversial. TBH, I never really expect Oscar material out of horror flicks. This series was made by the same creator as two other series - The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor, which is a retelling of The Turn of the Screw, with a few other references to ghost stories by Henry James. I was looking for something scary to watch last Halloween and landed on those and liked them, so I figured I'd check this one out, too.
The three series have some actors in common, and I thought they all did a pretty good job, with the exception of Henry Thomas - his British accent needs work. There were some times that I thought the scripts were a bit weak, but you'll have that with horror movies. Overall, good fun.
I am on episode two and have not seen anything that looks like a hit piece on Catholics. That is, one could put any denomination here in place of Catholics; even a different religion would work. At least thus far.
I thought the same. It actually came across more as a fundamentalist Protestant church, to me.
The only thing I saw in episode 2 is Riley Flynn explaining to Father Hill why he has no faith. That should not surprise anyone. Riley is certainly not the only former theist out there.
As this progresses I see a vampire priest (clearly intended to be fictional), Christians expressing their faith, an atheist explaining his lack of belief, etc., etc. all in a developing fantasy / horror series.
This is where the arts and entertainment takes (shape) place. (Smile.) The metaphor is a priest has ventured down a deep 'habit-hole.' Moreover, a most harrowing act of self-sacrifice is done by Riley Flynn who shall be shakened and stirred into gallantry.
Thing is, the priest is not acting of his own volition. He did not asked to be turned into a vampire and apparently cannot control his blood thirst (a common theme). So it is not really about an 'evil' priest but just a human being (who happens to be a priest) turned into a vampire and acting that out within his environment; ... so far ... that is.
Alas, the plot thickens. . . .