ramblings on conclave, the movie
Movie spoilers ahead!
Disclaimer: I started writing this before Pope Francis went to hospital for double pneumonia. From the media reports in recent days, it looks like the Holy Father is in the final stages of his pilgrimage towards his Heavenly home. Please join me in praying for Pope Francis.
I saw Conclave a few weeks ago, fully prepared for the scandal I’d been led to expect thanks to the commentary surrounding the movie. Honestly, most of the controversy with the movie’s depiction of Catholicism is pretty overstated. It’s certainly not a film filled with flattery for the Church, but as a Catholic, and a pretty traditionally minded one at that, I wasn’t offended. I am of the opinion there is some room for “artistic licence” to tell stories that fit somewhere in the gap between the solemnity of biblical narratives and the irreverence of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I watched the movie again this week. From a cinematic perspective, it’s visually stunning. It’s hard to go wrong when most of your movie revolves around the masterpiece that is the Sistine Chapel. Gorgeous cinematography and some wonderful acting by the star-studded cast help overcome the needless exposition constantly thrust at the audience. Ralph Fiennes as the protagonist, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, Dean of the College of Cardinals, gives a particularly captivating performance that makes the film worth watching. His character’s quiet gravitas and internal struggles of faith make him relatable, and his seemingly being the only cardinal uninterested in the papacy gives the audience good reason to root for him as a potential pope.
It’s a shame the film makes it incredibly obvious which of the cardinals will be elevated to the papacy. It takes away a lot of the intrigue and suspense in the key moments. A more compelling storyline would’ve cast Lawrence as an unreliable narrator, subtly manipulating events to serve his own hidden ambitions.
From the first scene that the eventual ‘winner’, Cardinal Archbishop of Kabul, Vincent Benitez, is introduced, the film creates a stark contrast between her1 and the other cardinals. While the majority of the cardinals are depicted as politically motivated, prideful, or driven by personal ambition, Benitez is framed as the sole figure of humility and moral clarity. Benitez is portrayed as uniquely virtuous: a quiet, unassuming, sympathetic voice whose background in war-torn regions further contrasts with the other cardinals, who seem detached from the real struggles of the world. This contrast feels contrived, especially because Benitez is concealing a secret that fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of the election.
It’s only in the final scenes we learn that Benitez is intersex, has a uterus, and is genetically female, meaning ineligibility for the priesthood, let alone the papacy. This shock twist results in a goofy bit of sensationalism rather than what could've been an interesting theological discussion had it been revealed earlier. And sadly our hero, Cardinal Lawrence, who is clearly concerned by these revelations, finally gives in to his exhaustion by letting things be, and the movie ends in what would be an incredibly scandalous situation for the Church.
The film has some very vocal critics. Bishop Robert Barron said the film “checks every woke box” whilst Cardinal Gerhard Müller labelled the film “anti-Christian propaganda” before making his comments redundant in confessing he hasn’t made the effort see it. Bishop Barron continued his comments, saying that the movie shows “the hierarchy of the Church is a hotbed of ambition, corruption, and desperate egotism.”
I mean, come on. Of course it’s not true of every cardinal or pope or cleric, and Barron is right to point this out, but historically that’s not exactly an unfair representation. You can read some brief summaries of bad popes here as a place to start.
I only wish that Barron, who is a great evangelist in the Church, actually discussed the theological issues associated with the finale of the film. How does Catholic doctrine address the eligibility of an intersex individual for the priesthood? How does Natural Law address these topics? When I left the cinema it wasn’t clear to me whether Cardinal Benitez was a man or a woman, and perhaps not to Benitez herself as she says “I am what God made me.” A discussion around this point would certainly aid criticism and turn the movie into a thought-provoking exercise rather than something of scandal to Catholics.
Bishop Barron and Cardinal Müller’s stances, strongly rooted in defending the Church’s authority and doctrinal purity, reflect some broader tension within contemporary Catholicism: How do we balance the defence of tradition with the need to engage with the world, including its culture and its media, in meaningful ways?
Given the weight of Catholic tradition and doctrine, any artistic depiction of the Church is bound to spark debate. The film’s narration assumes the truth of Catholicism and we are never led to believe that any of the cardinals are insincere in their faith. Yes, Conclave takes liberties with Vatican politics, but does it cross the line into an offensive misrepresentation? The film is not a documentary, nor does it claim to be an insider’s account of how a papal election unfolds. Instead, it constructs a drama that reflects real ideological tensions within the Church, even if the story is a little clumsily told.
In saying that, the movie views the liberals as on the right side of history, which is perhaps what bothers Barron and Müller the most.
Stanley Tucci’s character, the liberal Cardinal Aldo Bellini, explicitly lays out the ideological divide in an overtly political moment dripping with spite:
“Tell them I stand for a common sense approach to such issues as gays and divorce. Tell them I stand for never returning to the days of the Latin liturgy, or families of ten children because mama and papa didn’t know any better. That was an ugly and repressive time and I’m glad that it’s over. Tell them I stand for respecting other faiths, for tolerating other views within our own Church. And tell them that I believe women should play more of a role within the Curia.”
Yikes.
It’s hard to go past the blatant hypocrisy in saying “I stand for never returning” and then proclaiming that you stand for “tolerating other views” in the next sentence.
Cardinal Bellini’s speech embodies the film’s approach to Catholicism - faith is secondary to politics, and tradition is framed as outdated rather than deeply rooted in theology. This reduces complex theological and pastoral issues to talking points, dismissing the reasons why these traditions existed in the first place. Conclave assumes that “progress” within the Church means adopting secular values, but it fails to consider whether the Church should be evaluated by the same standards as a political institution. The Church does not simply change based on majority opinion; it weighs doctrinal integrity against cultural shifts, a struggle that is absent from the film’s portrayal of liberals versus conservatives.
This binary peaks with Sergio Castellitto’s Cardinal Goffredo Tedesco, a traditionalist caricature - brash, xenophobic, rigid. A convenient foil to the bleeding-heart liberals.
In the climax of the film, Tedesco reacts to a terrorist attack on Rome2 with outrage, calling the perpetrators “animals”. Cardinal Bellini then indignantly tells him, “You should be ashamed of yourself.” Are we supposed to be cheering on Bellini here? It’s not clear if the audience is supposed to despise Tedesco the way the narrator and his friends do, but in a world where Christians are being slaughtered for their faith, is Tedesco’s reaction really so indefensible? This attack damaged the Sistine Chapel and interrupted the Conclave! I would expect Catholics, and especially Italian Catholics, to be filled with rage at such a moment. In the wake of an attack on his home, his people, and his faith, his raw fury is understandable, even if uncomfortable.
Notably, unlike his peers, Tedesco is not shown to be corrupt, just overly ambitious. His assessment of the situation in the Church, that it has been corrupted to the core, is seemingly justified throughout the film. I am inclined to agree3 but that might be my own bias coming through - I try to hide my Neo-Platonist Augustinian Hesychastic distributism politics as best I can.
Conclave is a film that fascinates and frustrates. It’s a visually splendid drama that dares to peek behind the Vatican’s sacred curtains, but it stumbles by prioritising ideological point-scoring over the deeper questions it could’ve explored. Cardinal Benitez’s revelation could have sparked a profound discussion on divine creation and the nature of priesthood, but instead, it’s played for shock value.
As Catholics, we should neither dismiss nor uncritically accept cultural depictions of our faith. We should engage them thoughtfully, appreciating their artistic merits and challenging their misconceptions. Conclave does succeed in reflecting real tensions that Catholics grapple with today: the pull between tradition and adaptation, the often uncomfortable political entanglements Catholics find themselves in, and the messy intersection of faith and human imperfection. It’s not anti-Christian propaganda, as Cardinal Müller claims, nor is it a flawless masterpiece. It’s fiction - imperfect and provocative, in the same vein as Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose.
At a time when the next Conclave appears imminent, the film is a reminder that the Church, even with its divine mission, is carried forward by fragile, fallible souls. Conclave may not get it all right, but it dared me to ask some questions. For that, at least, it’s worth the watch. And as we pray for Pope Francis in his frailty, we might also pray for the Church he leads.
I say “her” because Benitez is genetically female.
Probably the goofiest moment of the film. A silly plot device to stop the cardinals settling on electing Cardinal Lawrence just to get out of there.
That the Church in the movie is in a bad state, not in real life!