Movie Rec: “Conspiracy of Silence.”

IMBD link

“Conspiracy of Silence” (2003) is a drama about the repercussions of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church as viewed through the lives of an active priest and his partner, an inactive priest; a straight seminarian; and, a journalist who tries to fight the hierarchy.

Although not as powerful and as hard hitting as the movie “Priest”, “Conspiracy of Silence” does an equally wonderful job of posing priests as both the protagonists and antagonists. This movie could have gone deeper…much deeper, but for what it does, it does well. Personally, I feel as if there was another seminarian and a noble priest who seemed to be forgotten by the writer and the director. It almost feels as if they had much larger roles, but were cut short for some reason.

As far as GLBT interests, this movie makes a lot of promises, but lacks follow through. The beginning of the film sets the stage for what could have been quite interesting. In some ways, I feel as if they told the wrong story or, at the very least, half the story. Even considering that, I’m recommending this movie. Don’t watch this film expecting a “gay movie”.

The cinema photography isn’t my preferred style, but that didn’t distract from the quality writing (what was included was written well) and wonderful acting. This is an Irish movie and some people have complained that the accent makes the dialog difficult to follow. I didn’t have this problem.

Now, for more shallow interests.

Eye candy: There’s not really much. Once again, the beginning is charged with a homoerotic element that seems to be forgotten by the middle of the film. The lead seminarian carried special interest for me because he almost has Father Daniel’s lips and the character is named Daniel. I suspect the meaning and origin of that name leads a lot of writers to name priests “Daniel.” There were a few priests in the background who deserved close-ups that they never received. There is a nicely done heterosexual sex scene, but who cares about that? *wink*

Actors: The bishop in this movie is played by the same actor who plays the bishop in “Father Ted.” There were others I thought I recognized, but I couldn’t place them. However, I suck at that.

Faith and Sexuality or Why Write Erotica?

(Some of you may find this post offensive.)

Why write erotica?

That question, in various forms, has to be the most common question asked of me. People understand why someone would want to be a writer. When you tell someone you have stories inside you that claw at you until they're told, they understand.

Everyone—everyone—has some kind of creative outlet in their lives. It might not be as recognized as writing, drawing, singing or dancing, but everyone has something that allows themselves to express their creativity. (Sewing, cooking, prayer, home decorating, gardening, etc.) Thus, everyone understands why someone writes.

What they don't understand is why someone writes erotica. I'm going to tell you why. Other erotica writers might word it differently, but when you listen to what they say, we all say the same thing.

We want to remind everyone that they are sexual beings and, for those who do remember, we want to give you a place to celebrate it.

Sure, we say things like "it's hot" and stuff like that, but the bottom line of what we're doing is celebrating beauty and life through sexuality.

Everyone expresses sexuality differently. Everyone defines beauty differently. For some, celebrating life means highlighting the eloquence of death. For some people embracing the beautiful means surviving ugliness. And for some, those very few people who are truly asexual, they express sexuality through silence and platonic love. Non-expression is a form of expression.

Every single one of us is the product of a sexual experience. Sex brings life—how can we not celebrate and enjoy that? Oh sure, biologically speaking, there are sexual acts that do not carry the potential for creating life…or is that true? Well, maybe not.

If you define creating life as producing a child, then yes. There are a lot of forms of sexual expression that don't do that. If you define creating life as fostering the spirit of living, then all forms of sexual expression do that at least on some level. Alone, partnered, or in a large group sexuality becomes a form of life and fosters the spirit of living.

When we place restrictions on expressing sexuality, we run into taboos and shame. And here's where I start offending people.

I believe religion is the biggest enemy to sexuality. Not faith, but religion. Religion—where you deal with rules and processes of prayer. Religion where you deal with condemnation and "shoulds", "oughts" and "shouldn'ts".

It doesn't have to be that way, but, sadly, all too often it is.

Faith, the mother of religion, is a glorious friend of sexuality. For those who believe in a creator deity, they know their body was fashioned for work and pleasure. They know the pleasure of witnessing a sunrise should be cherished as much as feeling their own skin or their lover's skin beneath their fingers. How better to thank your deity for life than to enjoy that life?

Additionally, sexuality is how we perpetuate the species. (All forms of sexuality including homosexual expressions are based off this instinct. Instinct drives us to do this, but does not promise results.) The creator deity you see when you pray or worship knew this when they created us. The deity planned this. Why would that deity give us such a powerful form of communication and then give us all sorts of limitations on how to express it?

Religion's rules are an attempt at preserving the sacredness of sexuality. I understand what religion is trying to do with this. It's trying to keep the virtue of sexuality from becoming the vice of sexuality.

I don't believe that humans are inherently evil. I don't believe that without religion we'd fall into a pit of destruction and become selfish hedonists. (Not to be confused with selfless hedonism.) I don't believe STD's are punishments for orgasm just as I don't believe the flu is punishment for breathing.

So, why would religion even want to limit forms of sexual expression? I think it's a misguided attempt at keeping us from becoming obsessed with all things sexual (thus a vice). When we do that, we miss out on the beauty of non-sexual things in the world. Sexuality as a vice is detrimental where as sexuality as a virtue is wholly positive. (Note: I believe the line between vice and virtue varies from person to person.)

When I sit quietly and think of the most personal and intimate thing I can possibly do, two things come to mind and I can't decide which one is more initiate—expressing myself sexually or expressing myself through prayer. Both are equally intimate, powerful and beautiful. That can't be a coincidence.

When we're intimate with someone, we allow ourselves to be vulnerable. We express desires and needs that we might not otherwise express. We allow our mouths to be manipulated through kissing and other ways. (That's trusting someone with our breath and voice.) We cannot wield a weapon while someone licks and nibbles our fingers. We close our eyes and allow someone to put their teeth upon our necks. We literally open our arms and give someone access to all of our tender bits. How is that any different from prayer? We're showing the same vulnerability. One cannot fight a god that they worship. And, when you pray and offer your concerns, worries and celebrations are you not allowing that deity a glimpse at your most tender bits?

Humans need language and physical gestures to communicate. Deities do not need these things. So, when we pray are we whispering thoughts or greeting a lover? Some of you just realized I'm saying prayer is having sex with God. And you would be right. Don't believe me? Try praying without words. Clear your mind and just feel the presence of your god(s). Take a quiet moment and bask in the base sensuality of raw faith.

Some of you may think I'm picking on the Christians with this. No, I'm not. Yes, Christians either by design or accident usually end up at the forefront of any puritanical statements. But, they're not alone. Are you familiar with some of the "family purity" practices of Orthodox Judaism? Or some of the sexual limitations of Muslims or Hindus? Yes, even some Pagans have hang-ups. There are extremists in every religion. Extremists manage to scream loud enough to get noticed by the world and some times they scream loud enough and long enough to become tradition.

With that stated, I'll close post…

The next time you wonder why someone would want to express themselves through erotic arts, take a moment to set your religion aside and examine your faith. Perhaps you'll find your own answer. If you don't find it, try praying without words.

It doesn’t have to be sacrilegious.

There’s a multitude of genres under the umbrella “Erotica.” One of the genres I particularly enjoy is “Religious Erotica.”

So what is religious erotica and what is it not? First things first, do not confuse religious erotica with inspirational romance. Those are two very different beasts. Inspirational romance is, generally, tamer than erotica and Christian themes are quite common. Religious erotica uses religious themes, of various faiths but Roman Catholicism is favored. Or it uses religious imagery. It plays up the taboo or forbidden element of sexuality blended with faith. It’s the juxtaposition of religion and sexuality.

Maybe it deals with a Roman Catholic priest struggling with temptation. Maybe it’s two members of laity who know this is wrong, but cave to carnal desires. Maybe it’s the setting or an underlying theme.

I’ve been toying in the realm of religious erotica for a while now. Obviously, About to Sin is religious erotica. That’s full on religious erotica that not only has a priest in a sexual situation, but I also use religious imagery in the setting and I make Father Daniel’s faith a major character motivation factor.

Full Circle, by all rights, could be considered religious erotica and there’s not a single member of clergy in it. If I explain fully why this is, it will ruin the moment in the story that Tami Parrington says, “…will shock the shit out of [my readers].” I can tell you this. The book starts in a destroyed sanctuary. Religious history plays a critical role in the story and Kendrick’s faith is nearly unshakeable. If that man had a choice of what to do with his last breath it would either be: stating his love for Byron or praying.

The beauty of good religious erotica, in my eyes at least, is that it respects religion. It’s not blasphemous or sacrilegious. Even after befriending some members of clergy, I’m not ashamed of what I’ve written. I don’t know if they are reading my story or not, but the thoughts of it does make me nervous. I’m not nervous that they might be offended by the story. I’m nervous that I jacked up something liturgical and they’d call me on it. (You bet your ass they’d call me on it too. They’d GLEEFULLY call me on it and they’d NEVER let me live it down.)

One piece of religious fiction that I wish had been more erotic was Tami Parrington’s Hell’s Own. It’s a story about a demon, Alexander, who escapes hell. Lucifer sends guys out to recapture his pet. God sends people out to snag the demon. I wanted Alexander and Michael the Archangel to get it on so bad I could taste it. There’s a hilarious scene where Lucifer calls (yes, calls as in on the phone a vidphone to be exact) God that had me laughing so hard I had to walk away from my computer to calm down. God was so “oh what now” with his attitude and Gabriele nearly soiled his robes. Too freaking funny! What she does with Adam (yes, THE Adam) is pure genius. I don’t know the status of that book and if it ever gets published, I will pimp it. I promise you.

Religious erotica can be light and funny like Hell’s Own. It can be flippant and irreverent. It can also be dark angst. What it shouldn’t do, in my eyes, is cheapen religion or faith.

There are things I won’t do in my religious erotica. I won’t make a predatory priest the hero. I have used it as a plot point and I have no problems making the antagonist a predatory priest, but what makes religious erotica work for me is that it’s the GOOD guy who is struggling with what he thinks is bad. I won’t make a charlatan a hero. If I’ve presented a priest/pastor/whatever as hero, you can bank on me thinking he’s a good guy even if you disagree.

Someone who isn’t into religious erotica may never see the respect in the story. Or they may find the whole concept blasphemous.

I don’t see a dang thing blasphemous about Anand and Daniel using Boy Butter (best name for lube ever) and having a blacklight reactive Pyrex dildo show up. Using confession-like language as pillow talk? Not sacrilegious in my eyes. Getting it on in a confessional booth? Yep, I totally have the balls for that. Playing a game DURING mass? Yes, I’ve gone there. Sex inside a baptismal tub? That’s in Full Circle.

Religious imagery is beautiful and powerful. Sexual imagery is beautiful and powerful. In my mind those naturally go together. The next time you find yourself in church look around and make note of all the phallic symbols. Look closer and you’ll find female equivalents. The Pagans make no bones about what dipping the athame into the chalice means. The Great Rite carried out—symbolic or otherwise. Do others see it when they dip those communion wafers into the wine? Or submerging someone fully into a basin of water? Does anyone look at those long taper candles with the brass heads and NOT see it as a phallic symbol? The shape of most sanctuaries can be likened to a huge intimidating womb add the long wide aisle that divides the pews, and you totally have symbolic representations of sex.

Even when dealing with same-sex couples there’s usually something going IN somewhere—oral sex, finger play, anal sex. Someone is the chalice and someone is the wafer/athame. It’s all the same. The difference is semantics. The union of flesh is one the most powerful things we can experience as humans and that act can produce life. Why shouldn’t we celebrate this? Why shouldn’t we write about it?

(As a side note: Sex can also be completely not worth taking off your socks. Sometimes, it’s just lame.)

Religious erotica dances a very fine line. And that’s a line that some publishers do not want to go near. Some publishers refuse submissions that have a priest or nun in a sexual situation. In my eyes priests, nuns, rabbis, etc have stories to tell and there’s nothing wrong with telling them.