Question about the story to Spotlight (2015)

The movie is based on a true story, but there is something I do not understand about the true story, that I was wondering if anyone could clear up. Basically in the movie, about 90 priests in Boston, give or take, are being investigated for sexual assault of minors.

A lot of parents of the minors went to complain to the church about it, but the church never ended up doing anything about it. But why didn't the parents just go to the police and tell them about it, and rely on the police instead of the church? I mean for random example, if I was sexually assaulted by someone who worked at an engineering company, and I wanted to file charges, I wouldn't go complain to the engineering company about it, and rely on them for justice.

I would take it to the police. It just makes more sense to do that, rather than leave the rely on the perpetrator's employer to do something about it. So why didn't any of them go to the police instead?

I havent seen that movie but from talking to someone I know who was a young anglican minister who was falsely accused, when a member makes an allegation of incorrect conduct the church bodies want to keep it on the inside. It;s why so many people are angry about it. The churches shut it down nd deal inhouse.

But what I don't get is how the church keeps it on the inside. Do they have a fund, where they constantly bribe police and prosecutors to drop the case? If this is so, then wouldn't it cost a lot of money if 90 priests are guilty of it? And why are the prosecutors risking their career taking bribes over something like that?

Good question. The way I understand it it's blind loyalty from the congregation. My friend hd a defamation case against both the complainant and the church but couldnt afford litigation, especially when he got excommunicated so the church could keep it quiet.

But what I don't get is, how would the church be able to afford to bribe all these police and prosecutors all around the country? If the police, and courts got greedy, they could totally suck the church dry out of money, so why didn't they?

I dont think it gets that far, but if it does, they certainly have enough dough to shut it down.

Well why wouldn't it get that far? Why even complain to the church about being sexually assaulted and stop there, if the church doesn't do anything about it? Here is what I do not get. Maybe this is because I am not American so I do not get how American society, and the system works...

But why do Americans rely on the church to solve sexual assault cases, more than they would rely on police detectives and prosecutors, who are specifically in the business to deal with those types of cases? I mean if I had been raped, I would call the police to report, and not the church.

Why is it done differently in Boston, or in the rest of America. Sorry, I just don't get it.

Well, the Vatican is - for lack of a better term - an influential power house. It's rich, self-serving, has branches all over the world and tries to keep things to themselves. When something happens that they don't have total control over it they use their own internal laws and rules; if a case becomes mediated they rely on PR service.

Money is the least of their problems.

__________________

I'm not American either. I'm also not religious but was brought up in the catholic church. A friend of mine was impregnated by a priest then miscarried. Her parents dealt with it inhouse. I would not, but if I had kids they would not be going to a religious school to start with. I'm just giving you my perspective based on what a minister I know went through.

where are you from?

I live in Canada.

howdy from Portugal

Dont you guys have big cover ups in the church? I'm in Aus and there's a poop storm down here about cover ups from decades ago just surfacing. People just didnt talk about it because it brought shame on the congregation.

Here's an article about it - http://www.bishop-accountability.org...ardinalSin.htm

I believe in most cases it was devout people putting faith in the church with their complaints and instead of actually doing something the church would move the priests to different churches so they wouldn't be near the complainers. It happened all over the world, Ireland had a particularly horrible time with it. If you are interested in this you should watch the documentaries Deliver Us From Evil and Mea Maxima Culpa. The first one is in California and the second Wisconsin but it's the same thing. I haven't actually seen the latter even though it is from one of my favourite directors because the first one was so vile and depressing i couldn't take it.

Perhaps, but I haven't heard of the police, prosecutors and judges, being in on the cover up. So people in Canada were still free to take the cases to the police and to court, as far as I know, and the church couldn't afford to get out of it by throwing money at it, as far as I know.

I'm not talking about police and judiciary being in on it, just the congregation having blind loyalty. I was an investigator for a corruption watchdog so I'm pretty sure this would have come out here if they were.

Oh okay. But how come in the movie, they never establish what the police tried to do, or their involvement? Or they never establish why people chose to rely on the church, and not the police, even after the church failed them? I mean going to the church to report it, is a huge CONFLICT OF INTEREST, so why would people rely on a conflict of interest to solve the issue? Why didn't they try to go to the police after?

In my first reply I said I havent watched it so I cant help you out there. I'm kind of over church cover ups due to my friend who was excommunicated without a hearing, so I stay away from that theme. The last one I watched about the church (which I dont have a lot of respect for), was the Philip Seymour Hoffman movie.

I'm probably going to talk out of my ass, but there's a strong emphasis in the concept of "congregation" in that movie - ie, the people from a certain location would keep things tight in that location and avoid publicity [which means no police].

The church has a certain "power" when it comes to local congregations. The people by themselves take the mantle of "curators" of the locals life and ways [specially true in small locations].

That's how i view the church as well, Dev. They protect their own, except when it threatens to bring shame on them. We have a cardinal in the Vatican hoping to be the next pope. That corrupt bastard was involved in years of coverups.