I just finished watching Two Popes on Netflix, and I couldn’t wait to talk about it here. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend watching it if for no other reason than the acting. Anthony Hopkins plays outgoing, highly conservative Pope Benedict and Johnathan Pryce plays incoming, highly progressive Pope Francis (who is his doppelganger). The movie is about their relationship and the eventual passing of the torch from the conservative to the progressive, despite strong disagreements and personality differences. Both share the concern that the Church is losing ground in people’s hearts, losing its effectiveness, but their fundamental views on religion and Catholicism are so different that they seem more likely to be enemies than friends. And yet, an odd sort of friendship forms between them which culminates in Pope Benedict’s private personal conviction (in the movie anyway), that the only future for Catholicism is for him to step down and allow the progressive Francis to lead.
I don’t know if this is a realistic interpretation of Pope Benedict’s views or not (an article on fact vs. fiction in the film can be found here), although it is a known fact that Pope Benedict unexpectedly stepped down which led to Pope Francis (his ideological nemesis) being made the next Pope. Although there was precedent, Benedict was the first Pope in over 700 years to renounce the office. The movie may be a progressive person’s fantasy of the necessity of moving forward. It could be an homage to the beloved Pope Francis. Who knows? To me, the value of the movie was in teeing up the differences between these two views and ultimately explaining to conservatism why progress is necessary. Here are some of the discussions that the movie presents.
Church Authority vs. Personal Morality
In an initial confrontation, Benedict has invited Francis to the summer palace without stating a reason for the meeting. Francis has made a formal request to retire which requires the Pope’s approval (because he is younger than 75), so he has brought his paperwork, assuming that the meeting is to review his request. Instead, Benedict denies his request and through a series of pointed questions exposes Francis’ “radical” ideas about women, divorce, homosexuality, and birth control. Francis speaks his opinions respectfully, but is rebuffed by Benedict who accuses him of lacking humility.
BENEDICT: So what matters is what you think, not what the Church has taught for hundreds of years?
This is the crux of their conflict. In Benedict’s eyes, Francis’ choices are a criticism of the Church (and of him, implicitly). He cites as an example that Francis refuses to live in the Cardinal’s palace in Argentina, but the Pope is living in the sumptuous Vatican. Even when he arrives in Rome, Francis is told by his driver that Benedict wishes for Cardinals to dress like Cardinals, not like bishops or priests. He realizes that he is too casually attired for Benedict’s preferences and asks the driver jokingly if he has a Cardinal’s hat lying around he can borrow as he hasn’t packed his. These outward manifestations are troubling to Francis who feels that people need to connect, not to revere authority, and he has survived the terror of dictatorship in Argentina and seen what poverty has done to people. In most of these early confrontations, Francis is deferential and downplays their differences out of respect for Benedict as the sitting Pope. He admits to his differing views, but calls them merely his own opinions. Benedict sees his evasions and wants him to be more direct.
BENEDICT: You said that the Church is narcissistic.
Francis admits to saying this, and he points out the ways in which he thinks it is true. He is trying to be tactful, but he also wants to make his case for retiring early.
Protecting the Church vs. Protecting the Flock
Their disagreement continues, until finally, in a fit of pique Francis blurts out what he really feels.
FRANCIS: I no longer wish to be a salesman for a product I no longer endorse!
This is probably the harshest statement he makes, and Benedict is taken aback. Francis talks about the Church’s poor handling of the sex abuse scandals, partly to explain his position.
FRANCIS: We fought these battles but all the time the real danger was within us.
Benedict refers defensively about the confession process that the priests who preyed on others followed, and Francis states with anguish:
FRANCIS: Confession cleans the sinner’s soul. It does not help the victim.
Tradition vs. Change
Benedict’s views are mostly couched as a love and respect for the history and tradition of the Church (whether this is accurate or not–it feels a little simplistic to me), and he finds peace and comfort in this static view of an unchanging, reliable God. Francis on the other hand sees God as in motion, not something static, and he is troubled by the Church’s stance toward marginalized people, those whose confessions he has heard for years.
BENEDICT: “Change is compromise.”
FRANCIS: “Life is change. Nothing is static in nature.”
BENEDICT: “God does not move.”
FRANCIS: “He does. He moves toward us.”
BENEDICT: “Then where do we find him?”
FRANCIS: “On the journey.”
Vocation: Peace vs. Call to Action
They each talk about their own personal vocation.
BENEDICT: When I was a young man…I always knew what God wanted of me, but now I don’t know . . . When I first heard that voice of God, it gave me such peace.
FRANCIS: The world can be chaotic, and there’s beauty in that.
Later in the film, Benedict also talks about how perspective changes with time.
BENEDICT: Perhaps the path only looks straight to us looking back. On the way, we feel lost.
Throughout the film, Benedict’s heart app continually interrupts the dialogue with a reminder that he must exercise. It continually says “Don’t stop now. Keep moving,” as if Benedict and the Church need a constant reminder that God’s work is active, not about traditions and comfort.
Worthiness Evaluation vs. Pastoral Care
Benedict challenges Francis on having given communion to those who were divorced, although they are not considered “good” Catholics.
FRANCIS: I believe that giving communion is not a reward for the virtuous. It is food for the starving.
Their disagreement deepens.
FRANCIS: Our church is moving in directions I can no longer condone. We are not connected to this world. I changed. Nothing is static in nature or the Universe. Even God. God moves towards us. We have spent these last years disciplining anyone who disagrees with us.
To make his point, Francis shares a joke about a young man who goes to the Priest.
FRANCIS: A young man asks the Priest, “Father, is it permitted to smoke while praying?”
BENEDICT: [sputtering] No, of course not! This is wrong!
FRANCIS: [smiling] The priest replies, you are asking the wrong question. Instead ask “Is it permitted to pray while smoking?”
BENEDICT: Oh, I see. [smiling vaguely]
Benedict admits he can never remember jokes. Francis sees God as having a sense of humor, but Benedict is portrayed as seeing God being more serious and not humorous. But he admires that Francis has a popular following, and he recognizes the ability to connect with people that Francis has.
Voluntary Retirement of Leaders
The entire film is based on the idea of Church leaders being able to choose to step down from their role. In the film, Francis has submitted his papers requesting early retirement, which requires papal approval for those under the age of 75. Benedict requests an in person meeting which is the basis for the movie (although fictional), and during that meeting, he not only declines Francis’ request, but he reveals his own plan to step down to allow Francis to become Pope. It’s like a game of papal hot potato (which would be even funnier in Spanish where “papa” means both pope and potato).
FRANCIS: “If you step down, you will damage the papacy forever.”
BENEDICT: “What damage will I do if I stay?”
Francis’ most fervent case against becoming Pope is one that (unlike the rest of the movie) paints him in an unfavorable light. He explains at length that during the dictatorship in Argentina, in order to attempt to protect his Priests and their order, he does not openly oppose the dictator who is a cruel thug, torturing and murdering any who oppose him. He even celebrates mass with him. He encourages Priests to leave the slums, and when he doesn’t back their decision to stay in harm’s way, they are tortured for months. In refusing to oppose the dictator, his reputation in Argentina suffers greatly, and his view of himself. He sees himself as having failed. In an ironic reversal from the argument about the sex abuse scandals, Benedict also takes him to task, although mildly, for protecting his own Priests but not the people, although he sees the success of protecting the ones he could protect.
BENEDICT: “Dictatorships take away our ability to choose.”
FRANCIS: “Or reveal our weaknesses.”
Nevertheless, it is this self-perceived gross failure in his youth (he was in his 30s) that causes him to change. He becomes more humble, listening to confessions for years and years, deeply listening to and empathizing with those who are seeking absolution, and he becomes more committed to justice in the world and more willing to speak up because he failed to do so at a crucial time.
What is ultimately remarkable about this film is that, although Benedict is largely portrayed as past his expiration date, he is the one who chooses to step down. He foresees his own irrelevance. He ultimately isn’t narcissistic and lacking in humility. As he explains to Francis, God corrects the mistakes of one Pope with another, and he looks forward to living to see his own corrections.
- Do you wish our leaders were allowed to step down or does having a quorum remove the issue because there are so many built in backups and alternate voices?
- Do you think ordinances should be a reward for the virtuous or food for the starving?
- What do you think of Francis’ joke about smoking while praying vs. praying while smoking?
- Do you see some of our leaders as more like Benedict or Francis?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
New Zealands Prime Minister is young female and progressive. Shes not only has a financial budget but a wellbeing budget. She also has a zero climate policy.
In Australia we have a conservative 51 year old man (imagine if he were 95) who denies climate science, and has not much else to recommend him to a progressive..
Many progressive Australians would like to have Jacinta, or similar.
I don’t believe the present succession system for the 15 is sustainable, because the oldest surviving person gets the job. Where is God in this? We have a 95 year old who is reasonabley capable for his age. Most of the recent changes are good.
I am in my 70s and have not had a leadership calling for 15 years. My father just died age 95. Do any of you have a bishop or Sp over 70 years. Why? age? This seems like a double standard. Can you imagine someone running for PONTUS at 95?
I believe there should be a retirement age for Apostles in the 70s. Which I realise excludes Uchtdorf.
I believe the Prophet should be chosen on merit. I would choose Uchtdorf. Uchtdorf will be too old before he gets in power, unless there is a dramatic change. I don’t know whether any of the younger Apostles are anywhere near Uchtdorfs standard
Oaks as Prophet, would set the church back years, unless he totally changed his spots.
How can this be changed? It would require humility, and it would increase credibility for the 15. I would be impressed but I don’t see it happening. It has to come from the 15.
I would change the culture too to remove the requirement for the 14 to express love for the leader, which comes across as sycophantic, and does not give confidence they are anything but yes men. It would be good to have different views from the 14. Part of Uchtdorf appeal is that he presents a different understanding of the Gospel, that does not include homophobia or sexism.
People who have spent the last 20 years in this artificial environment, seem to have little grasp of realty. Before the last conference we had a much promoted BYU presentation by the Prophet. Disaster. We now are promoting the April conference. Even with a trailer. I will be impressed if it has any depth.
Like the catholic church, we are at a crossroad. Either the church continues to stagnate, or it changes from a small conservative group, slowly dying, to a vibrant, progressive, church that spreads to fill the earth, as we once envisaged. We need to remove the conservative culture that prevents the leaders embracing the gospel of Christ.
Re “smoking while praying” I think it’s not a joke,
Re “ordinances” I don’t think all LDS ordinances fall in the same one of those two categories, But I also think the categories “reward for the virtuous” or “food for the starving” are not exhaustive. I do have a strong tendency to think the “reward for the virtuous” category is inappropriate; but replacing it with “permitted for the prepared who desire them” might well be appropriate in its place for some ordinances. The bigger issue then would be what constitutes preparedness and who determines it and on what basis.
The two categories given make much more sense to me in the context of the Eucharist/communion/sacrament — whatever one’s tradition calls it. As to that ordinance and faced with a dichotomous choice, I’d go with “food for the starving” despite Mormon 9:29, 3 Nephi 18:28-29, and 1 Corinthians 11:29, but with a heavy dose of teaching 1 Corinthians 11:28. The latter might never be particularly effective without a restructuring of our sacrament meetings toward the model of the Catholic (or Episcopal or Lutheran) mass, making the sacrament the central event of worship that is effectively re-taught each Sunday as a potent symbol of Christ abiding in (not merely with) us. John 15:4. But, as a matter of common practice, except for those subject to certain varieties of Church discipline, it seems we already administer the sacrament as “food for the starving” — making little or no effort to determine “worthiness” or “virtue,” or to enforce “worthiness” decisions as to those subject to such disciplinary decisions.
Oh, well — one generally respected Mormon church leader called me a “heretic” in the middle of a Sunday School class when I was a young missionary in Europe, for simply repeating in question form something that had been taught by Orson Pratt. 🙂
Despite our leaders having been very critical of the Catholics for many years, I think there are many lessons we can and should learn from the Catholic Church: 1. They have been able to form a big tent of people with different viewpoints, orthodoxies and levels of devotion. 2. This succession lesson I think is crucial for our path forward. President Monson had significant dementia for a lot of his presidency. I heard from pretty reliable sources this created some embarrassing incidents on a trip to Europe and he was pretty controlled when he was in public. I don’t think that was fair to President Monson or the Church. I like the idea of apostles retiring at 80. It will take a group of leaders who see this as important to the future of the Church and implement the change. I believe these are good men, but I think there are some big egos in the Q15 and I don’t see this happening anytime soon.
I think our ordinances are definitely rewards for the virtuous. I think it’s unfortunate that things like temple sealings are frequently the source of a lot of family division and clear lines in the sand of who is in and who is out.
The Vanity Fair essay is useful for context:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/12/the-two-popes-real-story
Excellent article, thank you. I just finished this movie as well. I enjoyed the tension between the the conservative and progressive viewpoints between the two individuals. One striving to hold on to faith that he feels eroded and attacked by progress and change. The other desperately trying to translate traditions into a living and practical Word. I would have loved to have seen more exploration of Pope Benedict’s views and an according exploration of that philosophical religious tension,
Side note- this movie felt like it would make a terrific play, focusing on the relationship and conversation (fictional or not) between these two passionate individuals and larger philosophies. And…reading the Vanity Fair article, I found out that it IS based on a play.
Your piece reminds me of something that has always bothered me about the LDS Church: just like other churches, the LDS Church is heavily influenced by the personalities and priorities of its prophet. When one prophet dies and is replaced, the Church’s direction can really change. All of us can think of many examples. And I guess what bothers me is that I have always held an idealistic view that the Lord’s will is the Lord’s will regardless of who His prophet. But instead, it seems as if His will changes depending on who is in charge. I base this on decisions made for the Church that reference what the Lord apparently wants.
For example, President Nelson is very determined to minimize the use of “Mormon”. He says this is what the Lord wants. He says Satan is pleased when we don’t use Christ’s name appropriately. In sum, he says he is executing a policy that is the Lord’s will but it’s a policy that contradicts previous prophets’ policies (“I am a Mormon”, etc.). Therefore, the question can be asked: is this the Lord’s will, or President Nelson’s will?
If the Lord is really in charge of the Church, I don’t expect the Church to change much from prophet to prophet. But just like the Catholic Church, it seems to reflect the man at the head of the organization. This concerns me. What if Elder Packer had made it to Prophet? What if President Oaks makes it that far? See what I mean?
Loved this movie. Saw it with my wife and a very interesting conversation followed since I agree more with Pope Francis and she leans towards Pope Benedict. One of the things that struck me most reflecting on the movie and our conversation is that both sides make good points. Neither faction has all of the answers. My wife pointed out problems and blind spots with Pope Francis’ ideas I hadn’t realized were there, and vice versa.
I don’t think the biggest problem with our Church isn’t necessarily that it isn’t liberal enough, it’s that more liberal theological interpretations are not even considered valid. In our church Pope Francis would be considered dangerous and unfaithful and almost certainly would never be put in a leadership position even at the local level. As a church we need a wide range of perspectives, one of the movies biggest points was that each view has a time and place. Our conservative tradition has a lot of strengths and has served us well in many ways, it may have the answers to the future as well. But it also has weaknesses, and we’ll never know how to correct for those weaknesses if an entire school of thought is marginalized and delegitimized. Different times need different ideas and leaders.
As a church I would like to see us become less allergic to robust public debate over our doctrine and teachings. You never know who will have the answers to our biggest challenges. A church that can tolerate different points of view and choose the best ideas among them is poised to succeed in our ever-changing world. I’m afraid our church with a very rigid focus on obedience and conformity may not be flexible enough to adapt to our circumstances and perpetuate our gospel message in a way that connects with present and future generations.
Tolstoy: with all due respect, it seems as if you are advocating a more democratic model for the Church when you push for “public debate”. Are we ready to turn over our doctrine and teachings to different points of view and “best ideas”?
I am not saying that every word stated by President Nelson (and the Q15) is scripture that should be unquestioned. but once we turn it over to debate, what makes the LDS Church different from any other?
I’m reminded of fictional Bishop Myriel from Victor Hugo’s Les Miserable. The book expounds on his traits much more than movies or the musical. For example he travels by donkey instead of fancy carriage and is criticized for it.
About praying while smoking, when I was in the MTC a well known Q70 speaker said we should always pray in our Sunday best because we’re addressing the Ruler of the Universe. I later mentioned it to my mission president in the field who got angry and said something along the lines of “General XYZ can pray in his suit if he wants but my Heavenly Father is glad any time His children want to talk.” I thought it funny that he chose to call the Q70 a general, possibly implying an over reliance on authority.
I want to see this movie. I have two kids in college and two in high school and three of them say the church is irrelevant. It’s possible that in the 1800s when technology didn’t change society so quickly, that a 90 year old could lead effectively. I think it’s almost impossible now. The Q15 could say starting at some point in the future, say with the next new apostle, that retirement will be mandatory. When I saw Pres Monson do something embarrassing during a cultural celebration I felt so bad for his daughter who was crying next to him. It seems inhumane to parade a good, hard working man, but struggling with dementia, and expose him and his family to humiliation.
josh h–you write, “I am not saying that every word stated by President Nelson (and the Q15) is scripture that should be unquestioned. but once we turn it over to debate, what makes the LDS Church different from any other?”
That would make an excellent post all by itself. I do think there are a lot of good answers to that question but I’d love to hear the responses of blog readers. I don’t think the answer is “nothing.”
Josh h- Fair question. I am pushing for a more democratic model of church governance. Our church was founded on the idea of personal and continuing revelation, shouldn’t we share what God tells us with our fellow members and leaders? I think that’s what God intended when he mentioned that the church shall be governed by common consent, members of the church who are active participants in seeking God and the restoration of the gospel.
I would also argue that the debates I’m advocating for are already happening, just behind closed doors among the Q15 (David O. Mckay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism provides some interesting insights into this dynamic). I think leaders are already heavily influenced by cultural ideas, upbringing, etc. I think we should make sure as a church that those influences are the best possible and encompass as much of the human experience as possible, and then let them make the final inspired decision.
Our doctrine is vast and what our church chooses to emphasize and how it does so are decisions that change from generation to generation. If that weren’t the case then continuing revelation would be unnecessary. I see Pope Francis as a positive role model in many ways and wish someone like him could exist in our church. He dissented on many issues, but at the end of the day supported his church and leadership even when it was no secret he disagreed. I would argue the church was better for his presence. Likewise, I think our church would benefit from members and leaders such as Pope Francis.
Was reading of JS being visited by the angel moroni, and the next day being so exhausted he collapsed. If revelation has that effect on a 14 year old it would kill an 80 year old.
So the system that has evolved for choosing a prophet,(still being alive when you become the senior apostle) means the prophet is incapable of recieving revelation.
Perhaps this is why they are so out of date? Or perhaps it is their culture from the past?
I don’t see any need for doctrinal change. Just culture that comes as part of the package. Part of which is not being able to apologise for past mistakes.
Tolstoy Christian:
The part of your comment that begins with “Our conservative tradition has a lot of strength” and concludes at the end of that paragraph, devastated the target, IMO. Thank you! The Church needs BOTH liberal and conservative influences. Group think on either side is suffocating. In our Church’s case, we need to let liberal voices in.
The Church, and our larger society, need BOTH progressive change and conservative brakes. Different times require different approaches. I think America would not have become the great country it became, had FDR not expanded the role of government during the Great Depression. And I say that as a (former) libertarian conservative. But the Church is so conservative already that it needs a liberal counter-weight.
With the exception of placing a “POX” on the use of the word “Mormon,” I appreciate the changes that RMN introduced: 2-hour Church, changes to Temple Ceremonies, etc. The Church had stagnated under TSM, and RMN is at least DOING things. I have learned that doing things carries risks of making mistakes, but NOT doing anything is a recipe for failure.
I am hoping (but not holding my breath) that he can introduce a more liberal spirit to the Church. Maybe that will have to wait for one of his successors.
I think we have a Pope Francis among the Q15, and his name is Uchtdorf. The problem is that while his popularity is unrivaled in my experience among Church members, he is unlikely to ever be the top dog, and there seems to be some tacit agreement among the Q15 that they won’t disagree with anything the top guy wants to do. That’s unfortunate. If there are disagreements behind closed doors, they aren’t influential enough to make a difference to the little people. They aren’t trickling down. They aren’t giving us hope. And I have to be honest and say that at this point, I simply don’t have much hope left.
The Catholic Cardinals vote for the Pope which means that there can be a more radical change. The downside they have is the same as ours in that they are all geriatrics, but on the upside, they are from completely different countries and parts of the world, and as such they have been exposed to different political situations and socio-economic problems. The confessions they’ve heard have been colored by different cultures.
Tolstoy: you make excellent points. And believe it or not, I’m not as dogmatic or inflexible as I may sound. Here’s my take on change in the Church: I don’t think core doctrine should really evolve or change. Doctrine should be pretty stable.
But when it comes to policies and procedures and programs within the Church, there should absolutely be a variety of voices at the table. In fact, we (the Church) would have avoided a lot of trouble in the past had that been the case.
Final point: I’m aware that doctrines and “beliefs” have changed over time in the Church. That’s because there has always been a lot of philosophies of men mixed with scripture. If we stuck to the core message of the BOM (Christ), you wouldn’t see these fluctuations. Church leaders should stick to the basics. They don’t need to talk about gender, sexuality, etc. that they are no more qualified to discuss than anyone else.
Cardinals older than 80 are not permitted to vote in a Conclave.
Geoff-Aus
” If revelation has that effect on a 14 year old it would kill an 80 year old.” Could the difference be that 14 year old Joseph Smith was not accustomed to receiving personal revelation of any kind so this new experience was exhausting to him. Whereas President Nelson and other leaders have been receiving personal and other revelations for many years so the effect isn’t as dramatic?
This sounds like a conversation between Elder Packer and Elder Uchtdorf.
Reply to “The Other Clark”
I enjoyed your comment about how this thread of comments sounds like a conversation between BKP and DFU! I would suggest pitting ETB and DFU against each other in the conversation, because Benedict by all reports pairs his conservatism with personal kindness, much like ETB. BKP, on the other hand, paired his conservatism with what I would characterize as a “triumphant sourness.” Speak nothing but good of the dead, I know, but HWH wrote journal entries about how he dreaded dealing with (unnamed) other members of the Q12 in their meetings, because they turned everything into a contentious ordeal; it is clear that he was referring to BKP. Even DHO, that paragon of mushy liberalism, is said to have made the famous crack about BKP, when someone suggested that other church leaders rein him in, “you can’t stage-manage a grizzly bear.” DHO reportedly offered to GBH to resign from the Q12 because of blowback about his BKP crack, but GBH did not accept the offer.
DFU is widely beloved because he lifts people up, and makes them glad that they met him or heard him speak. It is it not so much a question, IMO, of liberalism vs conservatism, although that enters into it, as one of personality.
Just gossiping; one of my favorite Christian vices.
TL, I am 71, most of my life I have worked physically. When I was 50 I could work 10 or 12 hours a day. I can now manage 6 or 7 hours.
You seem to be suggesting that if someone does something physical all your life that ability will continue into old age. Unless you are older than mee and still running marathons, I would say no that is not likely.
But Pres Nelson has redefined revelation to be; the Prophet getting agreement from the 14 others. If he actually had an experience like JS he would not survive. So a Prophet that is physically incapable of recieving revelation?
Geoff-Aus, I was thinking more along the lines that a person would have developed spiritual fitness and stamina to receive continuing revelation, but I guess you cannot divorce that from physical fitness and stamina.
Moving slightly more progressive could be relatively easy. Just announce at GC that Mission #4 is moved ahead of work for the dead. Give members a choice for their 10%: tithing, fast offerings, or humanitarian. Move some money from new temple construction and take some of the interest from investments, and use those resources for helping the poor. Set a goal of putting at least $5B /yr into global improvements. The Church would still be rich, and world would become a better place. And the Church’s tarnish image might be rehabilitated.
Tolstoy Christina – with you all the way.
The dichotomy being discussed plays out in members’ lives in interesting and perhaps unintended ways. Based on the same core doctrine, “differences in administration” can have real effects.
This morning I darkened the doors of my son’s ward to hear my daughter-in-law speak. The Elders Quorum instructor was a man in his mid-70’s. From his description of his life, he had had a successful business career and had a conservative bent. One of his credos is that it’s “never good enough”. One of the ways he applied “never good enough” was in his devotion to living the gospel. He told the story of meeting a man while they were both receiving radiation treatments for cancer. He determined that he would introduce this man to the gospel and bring him into the Church.
They conversed regularly and had lunch together on occasion. They lost touch after he completed his course of treatments. Some months later he inquired of his friend after he couldn’t reach him by phone and was told that he had died. In tears, our instructor spoke of how his efforts had been “not enough” as he had failed to bring this man into the church. He bemoaned that he had not been worthy to “earn” God’s grace.
After the room started to clear, I went up and embraced the instructor so that I could speak into his ear. I told him “You are enough. As you stand *today*, you are enough. Accept the Grace that floods around you. You don’t earn God’s Grace, it’s freely given. Accept it.”
The value of what he had done for his friend was in the kindness and support and friendship he offered. It will be measured by the comfort and peace his ministrations brought. Not by the fact that he didn’t get him to the baptismal font. What should have been satisfaction and joy for helping a brother in his last days, was instead a source of pain and shame.
As has already been mentioned, the presidents of the church can have some pretty big differences. I like the emphasis on ministering. Less of a fan of the ever-increasing checklists one must follow to be considered devout and worthy.
I finally got to see the movie and really enjoyed it. I was struck by the now Pope Francis’ argument for why a pope needs to suffer and die in office.
Still digesting that and other parts of the movie.
Honestly, that part caught me by surprise though the rest was just delightful and striking.