AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
Warning: This review contains spoilers to key aspects of the film. Let the reader beware, you have been duly notified. The movie Conclave is currently playing in cinemas, and while it’s still […]
Warning: This review contains spoilers to key aspects of the film. Let the reader beware, you have been duly notified.
The movie Conclave is currently playing in cinemas, and while it’s still only January, it looks like it is going to be one of best films of 2025. Based on the book with the same title by Robert Harris, Conclave is generating a lot of discussion and online debate.[1] Especially when Harris declared his aim in an interview with his publisher WHSmith:
For me fiction is a great tool exploring truth which I suppose is what all fiction is if it has any moral content beyond mere entertainment. For me that’s what I try to do and in all my books. I try never to be dishonest about the facts for … whatever the book is. I’d like to treat the truth with respect but try and find some tools of revealing it, or making it more interesting, or looking at it from the side, or imagining what it must have been like. That’s what I’m always trying to do, and that’s what I try to do in this book.
However, there is an extra need for caution. Movies are the slickest form of propaganda the world has to offer. And if as Harris says, ‘fiction is a vehicle for exploring truth’ then discerning the author’s truth claims is all the more important for people who follow the One who says He alone is the Truth (John 14:6).
My wife’s initial reaction when we walked out of the theatre was: ‘If I were still a Catholic, I’d be really ticked off by that film.’ It’s not difficult to understand her reasons. As is common with nearly every movie, the Roman Catholic Church is presented as being completely corrupt, filled with people who are only hungry for power, prestige and cultural influence rather than a desire to serve God. While everyone is sinful (Rom. 3:23) the reality is, this is simply not fair or true.[2]
Before addressing the substance of the film itself, it’s important to acknowledge Conclave’s excellent production values. This is a powerful piece of modern storytelling, as briefly noted below:
Now to the core element of the film. Like a spine running through a human torso, the director himself identifies the theme of ‘doubt’ as the driving philosophical force for the entire film. In an important homily given as the conclave begins by Ralph Fiennes’ character, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, seeks to inspire his fellow Cardinals with these words:
But you know all that…let me speak from the heart for a moment. St Paul said, ‘Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ’. To work together, to grow together, we must be tolerant. No one person or faction seeking to dominate another.
Speaking to the Ephesians, who were of course a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, Paul reminds us that God’s gift to the church is its variety. It is this variety, this diversity of people and views which gives our Church its strength.
Over the course of the years in service to one another, let me tell you that there is one sin which I have come to fear above all others: Certainty. Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. Even Christ was not certain at the end. ‘Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachani’ (My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?), He cried out in His agony at the ninth hour on the cross.
Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery, and therefore no need for faith.
Let us pray that God will grant us a pope who doubts. And grant us a pope who sins and asks for forgiveness…and carries on.
Peter Jensen, the former Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, taught us at Moore Theological College that one’s heart is never to be trusted. Just because someone “speaks from the heart” doesn’t mean that what he is saying is trustworthy or true. For as the prophet Jeremiah wrote: ‘The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?’ (Jer. 17:9). As Dr Jensen memorably put it, one may as well air to the world one’s dirty laundry as reveal the contents of one’s own sinful heart.
There are more things wrong with this fictional movie sermon than the one Mariann Edgar Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, gave after Donald Trump’s inauguration at the National Cathedral. Although it does contain more Scripture than the humanistic hectoring she gave to the US President! Let me briefly explain:
First, the Lord Jesus wasn’t filled with doubt when He exclaimed those last words on the cross. He was quoting from the opening line of Psalm 22:1. This is a profound prophecy about a future Son of David (King of Israel) who would suffer in precisely the same ways Christ did at the cross. For instance:
But that is not where the Psalm ends. The Psalm concludes with the suffering king and saviour’s persecution being reversed and His triumphing over His enemies in glorious victory. In words strongly reminiscent of Jesus’ declaration that ‘It is Finished’ (John 19:30), King David writes:
All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
All who go down to the dust will kneel before Him –
Those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve Him;
Future generations will be told about the LORD.
They will proclaim His righteousness
To a people yet unborn –
For He has done it!
(Psalm 22:29-31)
Christ suffered terribly upon the cross. He was physically and spiritually tortured in such a way that is entirely correct—and in no way hyperbole—to say that He literally went through hell for us. Jesus drank the cup of the Father’s wrath as He took upon Himself the punishment for our sins (Isaiah 53).
But here’s the thing, Jesus knew what He was doing. He knew that this was the Father’s will. And He knew that this was the only way through which we who believe in Him could be saved. Jesus wasn’t doubting when He uttered these words, but making the most glorious confession of faith the world has ever seen.
Secondly, our faith is not in the ‘Church’ but in ‘Christ’. This is the clever bait-and-switch Fienne’s character makes by talking first of all about unity and then reflecting upon diversity. If only he had set the apostle Paul’s words from Ephesians 5:21 into the broader context of the letter, then the meaning of how unity is achieved would become clear. The goal of faith is to see everyone come under the headship of Christ (See Eph. 4:11-13). Christ is the only One through whom spiritually unity is to be found.
Thirdly, and this is key to the rest of the film, rather than certainty being a “deadly enemy”, it is the very essence of faith. As we read in the book of Hebrews, ‘Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see’ (Heb. 11:1). Certainty is not the enemy to faith then, but its consolation. It resolves the ‘mystery’ of the unseen by trusting in He who is eternal and does not change. To doubt Him is to destroy faith. As such, it is not a virtue to be embraced, but a sin to be repented of.[3]
That is not to say that we should respond to people who struggle to trust in Christ harshly. Jude says we should be “merciful to those who doubt” (Jude 22). But being ‘merciful’ is completely different to being ‘affirming’. Having grown up in the Roman Catholic Church myself, I was always struck by the part of the liturgy which paraphrases the words of Mark 9:24, ‘I believe, help my unbelief’. Everyone wrestles with doubt. The question is, by the grace of God will we overcome it?
It is surely intentional then that Cardinal Lawrence’s Christian name is ‘Thomas’. In the Bible, the disciple Thomas is the one amongst the twelve apostles known for having doubted (John 20:24-25). Once again, the Bible presents Thomas’ actions in such a way that even though some might find his indecision understandable, it is by no means commendable. Scripture contains numerous warnings against doubt and unbelief. For example:
‘See to it brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness’ (Hebrews 3:12-13).
‘If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe ad not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does’ (James 1:5-8).
Cardinal Thomas Lawrence is in many ways the central protagonist of the film. We follow him from the opening scene to the final one on a spiritual journey. What we learn throughout the movie though, is that Cardinal Lawrence is seriously struggling with his significant spiritual doubts, so much so, that he acknowledges that he can no longer pray unless it is through a written liturgy.
The theme of ‘doubt’ then is the sub-plot which runs all the way through Conclave. But this is not how God wants anyone of us to respond to Christ. Near the end of John’s Gospel, Jesus rebukes Thomas:
Then He said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe’ (John 20:27).
Thomas then makes the remarkable confession that Jesus is his ‘Lord’ and ‘God’, and Jesus responds with these incredible words: ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen me and yet have believed’ (John 20:29). There is great blessing in believing, but not to those who continue in unbelief and doubt.
Conclave presents the scenario that most of the Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church are seeking the office of the papacy for nefarious reasons. Or at least, they are deeply conflicted individuals morally. Conclave presents four key characters to highlight the direction in which the Church should not proceed.
The first is Cardinal Tedessco, played by Sergio Castellitto. Tedessco is the arch-conservative who wants to take the church back to pre-Vatican II when the Mass was said in Latin. Even before the character of Cardinal Tedessco arrives, the viewer is left in no doubt that he is evil. And it’s not long before we learn that he is a power-hungry, racist, misogynist wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is further confirmed in the movie’s climatic scene where he goes on full ‘Islamophobic’ rant after a terrorist bombing spectacularly disrupts the conclave.
The second is Cardinal Tremblay, whom John Lithgow excels in portraying as a duplicitous and deceitful schemer. This American Cardinal is later in the film found guilty of ‘simony’ (the buying of an ecclesiastical office, named after the figure of Simon Magus in Acts 8:18). Tremblay goes to extraordinary lengths to destroy the chances of a key rival by bringing a nun to serve at the conclave who thirty years earlier was guilty of having had an inappropriate relationship with one of the Cardinals which resulted in the birth of an illegitimate child.
The third is Cardinal Adeyemi, played by Lucian Msamati. This African Cardinal looks to be the front runner in the election until his historical sexual indiscretion is dramatically uncovered. There is a moving scene where he is told that he needs to resign from the race and not seek nomination. And it is a timely and powerful illustration of why Scripture says selfish ambition is a temptation inspired by the devil himself (i.e. James 3:14-15).
The fourth false path is exemplified by Cardinal Bellini, played by the extremely gifted Stanley Tucci. Bellini is the personification of the modern-day ‘woke’ progressive. His clear agenda includes women’s rights, acceptance of homosexuality, softening of the rules around divorce and remarriage, and especially increased dialogue with other faiths. Cardinal Bellini is the foil to Cardinal Tedessco, and in a key scene Tucci’s character says to Fiennes’ who is the Dean of the conclave: ‘It is a war! And you have to commit to a side!’
All of which brings us to the person who is finally chosen to be pope. He’s not black and sexually compromised. He’s not financially corrupt and trying to buy votes. He’s not ultra conservative and bring the church back to the Latin Mass. And He’s not even a progressive and seeking to make the Church of Rome ‘woke’. No, he’s none of those things, because technically ‘he’ is not really a ‘he’. Yep, you heard that right, Pope Innocent (as he’d like to hence forth be known) is neither male or female but, intersex.[4]
The character of enigmatic Cardinal Benitez, played by the biological male Carlos Diehz, is something of a ‘mystery’ from the moment he is introduced. I use the word ‘mystery’ deliberately as he is the personification of what it means to walk not by faith (and certainty) but by ‘doubt’.
Before the conclave begins Cardinal Benitez is cautiously accepted into the gathering upon the Cardinals learning that he has been secretly appointed by the previous pope as an underground Cardinal in Afghanistan. As unbelievable as this might seem, what makes us as the viewer immediate side with ‘he/her’ is that all the other Cardinals are viewed as ecclesiastical bureaucrats whereas Benitez has served all over the world in places such as the Congo amongst the poor and dispossessed.
However, there’s only one problem. There is a huge amount of doubt regarding Cardinal Benitez’s biological sex. It’s not black and white because he’s neither male nor female, but both. And here in is the ‘truth’ which the author, and subsequent film, seek to preach. Nothing is certain. Not even one’s chromosomes.
Instead, everything must be questioned, especially the dogma of Roman Catholic Church, because the world is so morally complicated that we must doubt rather than believe. Read carefully again the speech Benitez gives in Conclave’s climatic twist:
Benitez: My situation, as you put it, is the same as when I was ordained as a priest and when I was made a cardinal. But [as for] the treatment in Geneva, there was no treatment. I considered it, I prayed for guidance and decided against it.
Lawrence: But what would it have been, this treatment?
Benitez: It was called a laparoscopic hysterectomy. You have to understand when I was a child there was no way of knowing. My situation was more complicated and life in the Seminary is as you know a very modest. The truth is there was simply no reason to think I was physically different from the other young men.
Then in my late 30s I had a surgery to remove my appendix and that was when the doctors discovered that I had a uterus and ovaries. Some would say my chromosomes will define me as being a woman, and yet I’m also as you see me.
It was a very dark time for me. I felt as if my entire life as a priest had been lived in a state of sin. Of course I offered my resignation to the Holy Father. I flew to Rome and I told him everything.
Lawrence: He knew?
Benitez: Yes he knew.
Lawrence: And he thought it acceptable for you to continue as an ordained minister?
Benitez: We considered surgery to remove the female parts of my body, but the night before I was due to fly I realised I was mistaken. I was who I had always been. It seemed to me more of a sin to change his handiwork than to leave my body as it was.
Lawrence: So you are still um…?
Benitez: I am what God made me and perhaps it is my difference that would make me more useful. I think again of your sermon. I know what it is to exist between the world’s certainties.
There’s a lot to unpack in this concise exchange, as it is a masterful presentation of postmodern propaganda. The centre of the entire issue is that even the fundamental biological reality of being male or female should be ‘doubted’. Forget ordaining the world’s first female pope. Conclave wants to move beyond one’s biological sex, and subsequently one’s gender identity, entirely.
Having XX chromosomes, ovaries and a uterus are not enough to define someone as a woman. Obviously, being intersex means that there would also be male biological traits but these are not identified in Conclave but left deliberately ambiguous. However, with a male actor playing an intersex character they don’t need to be. The voice of Cardinal Benitez is obviously male even if he describes his body as having “female parts”.
As with the argument undergirding homosexuality, Conclave is arguing the ‘truth’ that people who are intersex or transgender are ‘born that way’. Hence, to try to change one’s sexuality or gender is wrong. It is not a sin to be repented of, and any form of medical intervention or ‘conversion therapy’ is itself sinning against God. For as Benitiz says, that is “what God made me”.
It should be noted that even many gay activists reject this claim. They explicitly reject the argument of having been born gay and state that it was their own choice as can be seen here and here. Rosaria Butterfield, a converted lesbian and influential Christian author, helpfully explains that:
‘Homosexual orientation is a man-made theory about anthropology, or what it means to be human. It comes from atheistic worldviews that coalesced in the nineteenth century in Europe. Homosexual orientation is not a biblical concept, nor can it be manipulated in the service of Christian living. Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin (1809-1882) both contributed to the general idea of sexual orientation, the idea that human beings oriented-aimed, directed, pitched-by sexual desires, understood as an internal, organic drive over which we have no control…The actual phrase “sexual orientation” became the twentieth-century articulation that who you are is determined by the objects of your sexual desire. Under the worldview of homosexual orientation, homosexuality is a morally neutral and separate category of personhood, rendering the homosexual a victim of a world that just doesn’t understand sexual variance.’[5]
Significantly, sexual orientation is not a concept which is found in the Bible, and it should be subsequently rejected. What’s more, it only has a very recent use in the history of ideas. For most of human history, ‘homosexual’ referred to an act which someone performed rather than a category to which someone belonged. As Nancy Pearcey explains:
When was the meaning of the term changed? In the nineteenth century, as Christian moral influence waned, medical science took over the definition of sexuality. The moral terms right and wrong were changed to the supposedly objective scientific terms healthy and deviant. Under this new “medico-sexual regime,” says Foucault, what had been a “habitual sin” now became a “singular nature.”[6] What had been a “temporary aberration” now became “a species”. Science cast hetero- and homosexuality as divergent psychological types, innate and unchanging.[7]
The ramifications of the above insight are significant. As Pearcey goes on to explain:
But today science is changing once again. Recent studies have found that sexual desire is more fluid than most people had thought. Lisa Diamond, who identifies as a lesbian, is a researcher with the American Psychological Association and discovered (to her own great surprise) that sexual feelings are not fixed. They can be influenced by environment, culture, and context. People with exclusive, unchanging same-sex eroticism are actually the exception, not the norm. The Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling, which declared sexuality to be “immutable,” is already out of date. Diamond states bluntly, “We know it’s not true…Queers have to stop saying: ‘Please help us, we were born this way and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing.”[8]
One of the subtle ways the ‘truth’ of “born-that-way” is reinforced in the movie Conclave, is by Lawrence then walking outside and caring for a stray turtle which had wandered from a pond. Many people try to argue that turtles are creatures that can change their biological sex or gender depending on the environment. This is believed to be connected not to chromosomes but to the changing temperatures connected to climate change.
Hence, the turtle is not only the perfect metaphor for Cardinal Benitiz’ sexual dilemma, but also the symbol for how the Church of Rome should respond to a changing world. Rather than be defined by tradition and dogma, they should be flexible and accommodate everyone, according to the temperature of the water at the time. In short, it should embrace ‘doubt’ as nothing, not even one’s gender, is ultimately ‘certain’.
Another key dramatic and thematic element which Conclave addresses is that of the terrorism connected to Islam. In a spectacularly orchestrated scene, the proceedings of the conclave are abruptly disrupted by what turns out to be a car bomb and a suicide bomber. Significantly, this happens just as Cardinal Lawrence is casting a ballot for himself which, due to his own serious doubts (i.e. unbelief), is also a sign of judgment from the LORD.
But this also marks a key turning point in the movie where the ultra-conservative Cardinal Tedessco is presented as a war-mongering and intolerant religious bigot. The fact that Cardinal Tedessco is from Italy and vehemently expresses his thoughts in Italian makes him appear like the fascist dictator Mussolini.
This also gives the intersex Cardinal Benitez the opportunity to self-righteously pontificate (pun intended) on how the real enemy is within each person’s heart and not from the outside world. This is because he alone (apparently) has seen war and pain and suffering. He has ministered secretly in a Muslim majority country, and thus has the moral authority to rebuke everyone else who has not.
Of course, some of this is true, but it’s not the whole truth. Militant Islam has always been a massive physical threat to the existence of Christianity, especially in the Middle East. Human history is a clear record of that fact, and if the crusades hadn’t happened then things would have been much worse.[9]
Conclave obviously raises some complex moral issues, and anyone who sees it will need much prayerful discernment. Movies are the multi-million dollar propaganda machines, designed not only to entertain but also to communicate a message. And when that message undermines the definition of what ‘faith’ means, then people who actually have faith in Jesus should be all the more cautious.
There is no gratuitous sex, violence, language or even blasphemy, and it will provide an opportunity to discuss how movies try and shape our minds (contra Romans 12:1-3). And in particular, how truth remains true, while we live in a world of fifty shades of grey (let the reader understand).
Conclave also contains timely warnings about the abuse of power, the ever-present temptation of greed, the insidious and demonic desire involved with selfish ambition, as well as the need to ultimately remain faithful to the calling of serving God.
However, Conclave finishes on a politically provocative, but ultimately unbelievable note, which should leave many feeling frustrated. An intersex pope? Really?? If the key candidate from Africa was dismissed because of something which happened thirty years ago, how would the media respond to finding out that a pope wasn’t really a man, or woman?
I kept thinking, how different the message of the film might have been if it had focused on the theme of forgiveness. However, that’s precisely what didn’t happen.
When the African Cardinal in question is discovered to have sinned historically, he is immediately instructed by Cardinal Lawrence to withdraw from the race and sadly, to try and make atonement for his sin somehow. It is an incredibly moving scene, but our compassion for the man is mollified by the fact that he is presented as too enthusiastically wanting to be pope. That goes with his angry and pompous attitude to homosexuals and women.
But how good would it have been if the leader of the largest Church on earth could himself model the message of the Gospel? That both doubt, moral failing and even denying Christ can all be forgiven, just as the apostle Peter (whom Roman Catholics claim as the first pope) received (Mark 16:7). That as with the apostle Paul he could say:
‘Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life’ (1 Timothy 1:15-17).
Instead, we’re left with a film which champions ‘doubt’. At a time when one of the first executive orders President Donald Trump signs into law that the United States government will only recognise two genders, many will be applauding the movie’s subversive message. But for the Christian moral and theological truth remains as a spiritual necessity. As the author of Hebrews writes:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him’ (Hebrews 11:6).
– Mark Powell
[1] Full disclaimer. I have watched the movie but not read the book. However, from my research of reviews online, the film stays pretty close to the plot and structure of the book.
[2] For a good review of Conclave’s numerous flaws from a Roman Catholic perspective, see James Bradshaw, Why are so many bad movies about Popes. ‘Conclave’ is even worse. While Bradshaw makes many excellent points, I think his review ultimately misses the underlying subversive message of the film.
[3] See Proverbs 3:5-8; Matthew 14:28-31; 21:18-22; 28:16-17.
[4] Whereas people who are transgender are biologically male or female but identify socially as another gender, people who are intersex have both biological characteristics. It is thought that this affects .01 per cent of the world’s population.
[5] Rosaria Butterfield, Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age (Crossway, 2023), 65-66.
[6] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol 1 (Random House, 1976), 42-43; Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexuality (IVP, 2011). Quoted in Nancy R. Pearcey, Love Thy Body (Baker, 2018),166.
[7] Pearcey, Love Thy Body,166.
[8] Pearcey, Love Thy Body,167; Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity (Harvard University Press, 2008).
[9] See Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (HarperCollins, 2011).
