Decent Films Guide reviews "Constantine's Sword"

One of my favorite film review sites is Steve Greydanus' "Decent Films Guide." He does not so much write capsule reviews as he writes thoughtful essays that analyze films from the perspectives of both a Catholic and a lover of cinema. He doesn't rubber-stamp an A+ on every film that attempts to be family- and faith-friendly, and is not afraid to show a film's serious flaws even if it has the best intentions. I don't always agree with his points (I thought "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" was better than he portrays it in his review of the latest Indiana Jones flick), but we're pretty much on the same page with most reviews. And I often learn a little cinematic history in the process, which I appreciate.

One of his latest posts deconstructs "Constantine's Sword," the bitter "documentary" by ex-priest James Carroll about the history of antisemitism in Christianity (and particularly the Catholic Church). To understand why I use quotes around "documentary," read the review. Carroll goes so far, according to Greydanus, as to allude that the Church was partially responsible for the Holocaust. Greydanus tries to be as fair as he can to Carroll's film but finds several errors that are likely to not get caught by mainstream media critics (and many viewers) who are not versed on the Catholic Church and its history.

"Constantine's Sword" made the news here locally when speaker Mikey Weinstein (who appears in the film) tried to show clips during an April 9 talk he gave at the Air Force Academy on how the mixture of religion and government leads to wars. Academy leaders previewed the clips, deemed them anti-Catholic and refused to allow Weinstein to show them. The film eventually showed for one week at Kimball's Twin Peak downtown.

"Constantine's Sword" is one of growing list of pseudo-historical works that takes advantage (and in the case of "The Da Vinci Code," thrives) on the lack of knowledge Catholics have about their faith and history; if it sounds authoritative, then it must be so. Greydanus does readers a favor by studying the film's source material, a 700-page book of the same name, and highlights these important bits of background information:

A documentary of sorts based on Carroll’s book of the same title, Constantine’s Sword doesn’t go quite as far as its source material in deconstructing the cross and the faith it represents. Subtitled The Church and the Jews – A History, Carroll’s book effectively contends that “proclaiming the cross of Christ” and “God’s all-embracing love” are mutually exclusive. The cross, Carroll writes, is “the symbol of all that Christians must repent in relation to the Jewish people” (p. 601–602).

In the last seven of his 60 chapters, Carroll, an ex-priest, offers a modest proposal for Christian “repentance”: The Catholic Church must (a) convene Vatican III, (b) flag and confess anti-Jewish distortions in the New Testament, (c) reject the Nicene Creed in favor of something more Unitarian, (d) dismantle the hierarchy and embrace “holy” democracy, and (e) to show that we really mean it and we’re really sorry for the last 2000 years, dismantle the cross at Auschwitz — a proposed act that, as vividly and ritualistically imagined by Carroll — “a removal of the horizontal beam, an uprooting of the vertical, a reversal of the instruction Constantine gave his soldiers” (p. 604) — suggests much more than removing a single controverted monument. Carroll imagines it as a veritable “sacrament” embodying the deconstruction of traditional Christian faith.

I haven't found that information in any secular review. Thanks to Mr. Greydanus for taking the time to provide his thorough, thoughtful reviews. For some other outstanding Catholic-lensed film review/discussion, I also recommend Church of the Masses by Act One founder Barbara Nicolosi.