The movie Spotlight is named after a team of investigative journalists at the Boston Globe.  They pierce a smokescreen of secrecy—fueled by police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, businessmen, civil servants, their own bosses and colleagues, even their own subconscious desires to protect the reputation of the Catholic Church—to shine a spotlight on priests’ abuse of children, both sexual and spiritual, in articles published in 2002.  There are spoilers here.  Though the film is based on actual events and people, I’m writing about characters in a movie, including the Catholic Church.

The scope of investigative journalist Mike Rezendes’ (Mark Ruffalo) research is broadened by phone conversations with Richard Sipe (Richard Jenkins – voice only), a psychiatrist and former priest, who treated pedophile priests during the last half of the 1960’s.  I quote one of their conversations, more personal than professional.

“Richard, do you still go to mass?” Mike asks.

“No.  No, I haven’t been to church for some time now.  But I still consider myself a Catholic.”

“How does that work?”

“Well, the church is an institution, Mike, made of men.  It’s passing.  My faith is in the eternal.  I try to separate the two.”

“Sounds tricky.”

“It is,” Richard agrees.

Cardinal Law (Len Cariou) presides over a shell game in the Boston Archdiocese, moving pedophile priests from parish to parish.  A super at the end of Spotlight reads, “In December 2002, Cardinal Law resigned from the Boston Archdiocese.  He was reassigned to the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, one of the highest ranking Roman Catholic churches in the world.”

The producers expect us to feel a certain way about that fact.  I want to use it to distinguish church—a not-for-profit business—from what I’ll call ἐκκλησία, those called by God through Jesus Christ to be led by his Holy Spirit.  Cardinal Law was promoted by the church.  He was a company man defending it from scandal.  Richard says: “the secretary-canonist for the papal nuncio…co-authored a report warning pedophile priests were a billion-dollar liability” sixteen years earlier than the present in the film.  But this faithfulness to the church doesn’t work out so well for the ἐκκλησία, especially the little ones Jesus mentioned (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1, 2).

Spotlight editor Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton) threatens attorney Eric Macleish (Billy Crudup)—who profited settling child abuse cases against the Church privately—for information and confirmation: “We’ve got two stories here.  We’ve got a story about degenerate clergy, and we’ve got a story about a bunch of lawyers turning child abuse into a cottage industry.  Now, which story do you want us to write?”  Later however Robby admits regretfully:

“We had all the pieces.  Why didn’t we get it sooner?…Macleish sent us a letter on 20 priests, years ago…We buried the story in Metro.  No folo.”

“That was you,” Robby’s boss Ben Bradlee, Jr. (John Slattery) says.  “You were Metro.”

“Yeah.  That was me.  I’d just taken over.  I don’t remember it at all.  But yeah…”

Paul was concerned with both, the church and the ἐκκλησία, without distinguishing between the two.

His most beautiful words to the ἐκκλησία and to the church are his words on love.  In his letter to the Corinthians love was presented as one way, albeit, a way that is beyond comparison,^[1] a more excellent way (KJV), a still more excellent way (ESV), a way of life that is best of all (NLV), the most excellent way (NIV), the same way Jesus preached in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:13-48 NET).  In his letter to the Romans Paul presented love as the only way (Romans 13:8-10 NET):

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Cleary, the love of natural humans will not fulfill the law.  We must all be born from above^[2] through faith in Jesus Christ, dependent instead on the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe,^[3] the love that is an aspect of the fruit of his Holy Spirit.  I’ll continue contrasting Paul’s regime in 1 Corinthians 5 to Jesus’ regime in Revelation 2:18-29.

Not good your boasting (or, glorying, KJV, NKJV), Paul wrote.  The Greek word translated good is καλὸν (a form of καλός).  This is the beautiful good of Jesus’ works.  What follows is a quote from an article by George Long in William Smith’s “A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,” defining incestum in Roman law:

If a man married a woman whom it was forbidden for him to marry by positive morality (moribus), he was said to commit incestum (Dig. 23 tit. 2 s39). Such a marriage was in fact no marriage, for the necessary connubium between the parties was wanting. Accordingly, incestum is the sexual connection of a male and a female, whether under the form of marriage or not, if such persons cannot marry by reason of consanguinity.

There was no connubium between persons related by blood in the direct line, as parents and children. If such persons contracted a marriage it was Nefariae et Incestae nuptiae. There was no connubium between persons who stood in the relation of parent and child by adoption, not even after the adopted child was emancipated.

With this in mind I would say it was the most likely meaning of the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles.^[4]  A man cohabiting with his father’s wife, was against the law, Roman law as well as y^ehôvâh’s law.  In other words, it was a circumstance not unlike those in the movie Spotlight.  Would anyone consider the conspiratorial cover-up revealed in Spotlight a beautiful good?

Of course, now I need to consider whether turn this man over to Satan (σατανᾷ, a form of Σατανᾶς; adversary) was simply an instruction to turn him over to Roman authorities in the city of Corinth.  But I reject that notion just as quickly.  Roman authorities had no interest in the blasphemy of Hymenaeus and Alexander.  I find no guilt in him,^[5] Pilate said of Jesus, while the Jewish authorities had Him dead to rights for blasphemy (Matthew 26:25, Mark 14:63, Luke 22:71 NET) if He is not y^ehôvâh, the Son of God the Father.

Don’t you know that a little yeast (ζύμη) affects the whole batch of dough?^[6]  Paul continued.  Yes, that is exactly how Jesus expected his teaching to work in and through those who are called according to his purpose:^[7]  He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast (ζύμῃ) that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.”^[8]  To be fair Paul wasn’t writing about Jesus’ teaching.  He wrote about the yeast (ζύμῃ, another form of ζύμη) of vice and evil.  He’d already been-there-done-that as far as Jesus’ teaching was concerned.  In 1 Corinthians he was scrambling to put the toothpaste^[9] back in the tube.

I need to pause to spell out what I’m actually thinking.  That is the main purpose of these essays, after all, to remind me what I was thinking as I did a particular word study.  As I worked on this one I stumbled across a website by Sherry Shriner.  She uses many of the Scriptures I use to assert that “The Apostle Paul Was A Deceiver!  He was Satan In The Flesh!  An Antichrist!”^[10]  I’m not asserting that at all, only that Paul is a human being, born from above, led by the Holy Spirit, struggling at times with the sinfulness of his own flesh or with overcoming his own religion, which he characterized as my own righteousness derived from the law.^[11]

More to the point here in 1 Corinthians 5 I think he struggled with 1) the repercussions of changing^[12] his manner of teaching—When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God.  For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified^[13]—and, 2) his allegiance to James’ abbreviated version of the law (Acts 15:19, 20 NET) from the Jerusalem Council—As [Paul, Silas and Timothy] went through the towns, they passed on the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile believers to obey.^[14]  I think what the NET translators called a Corinthian slogan—All things are lawful for me^[15]—was the logical consequence of this teaching.  I also think the Corinthians may have been the most sinful people (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NET) to be called to that time—but called they were (Acts 18:9-11 NET):

The Lord said to Paul by a vision in the night, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, because I am with you, and no one will assault you to harm you, because I have many people in this city” [Table].  So he stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

According to Kyle Harper: “Prostitution [πορνεία; sex with “slaves, prostitutes, and concubines”] was considered a social necessity, an alternative to the violation of respectable women [μοιχεία], in the Roman Empire no less than in classical Greece.”  But “πορνεία was not a common term before Judaism and Christianity infused it with new meaning.”^[16]  “Πορνεία in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs functions,” Mr. Harper continued, “as a catchall vice for any sexual transgression….Reuben was guilty of πορνεία for sleeping with Bilhah, Rachel’s maid, because his father had been in the same bed….”^[17]  The thought that Paul derived his understanding of πορνεία from a book of fiction sent me to bed for a time.

When I got back to work I realized that the language of popular fiction^[18] might well reflect the common word usage of a people and a time.  I realized we are not told whether the man who had his father’s wife was a Jew or proselyte who might be familiar with a usage of πορνεία that would include incestum, or a pagan more familiar with πορνεία as sex with slaves, prostitutes or concubines.  I don’t know whether Paul assumed his hearers understood the breadth of πορνεία that may have been common in Second Temple Judaism or taught it explicitly in Corinth.  I know Paul wrote a sin list in his letter to the Galatians (5:19-21a NET):

In the Textus Receptus this list begins with μοιχεία (adultery).  But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, Jesus said, and these things defile a person.  For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι, another form of πορνεία), theft, false testimony, slander.^[19]  And, For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι, another form of πορνεία), theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly.^[20]

These sin lists alter the landscape considerably.  It is not possible for the words πορνείας^[21] (another form of πορνεία) or πορνείαν^[22] (another form of πορνεία) from James’ abbreviated version of the law to stand for every defilement that comes from the human heart, every work of the flesh.  Frankly, I think all of this happened in space and time to push Paul, the human author of so much of the New Testament commentary on the Gospel, to abandon his allegiance to this decision of the Jerusalem Council and to hear better words and gain a better understanding.  And I think these events are recorded in Scripture so that we would see how much better these words and this understanding actually are (Romans 7:7, 12; 3:19-24, 31 NET):

What shall we say then?  Is the law sin?  Absolutely not!  Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law.  For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.  For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Do we then nullify the law through faith?  Absolutely not!  Instead we uphold the law.

Confronted with a Corinthian man who had his father’s wife, Paul turned to Satan for help.  Confronted with pedophile priests, the Catholic Church turned to psychologists and psychiatrists.^[23]  Spotlight, perhaps it is unnecessary to say, is not a movie about the amazing power of psychologists and psychiatrists to take away the sin of pedophile priests.

On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away (αἴρων, a form of αἴρω) the sin of the world!”^[24]

For far too long I believed that meant forgiveness only.  I didn’t believe that, Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.^[25]  I didn’t believe that all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.^[26]  I thought it was all up to me: my faith, my obedience, my love, my joy, my peace, my patience, my kindness, my goodness, my faithfulness, my gentleness, and my self-control.