Mozilla CEO Resigns

Cristero victims on display for passersby along the railroad.

I’ve been pondering whether to say anything about the recent resignation of Mozilla’s CEO on the grounds that he once supported a ballot proposition to prevent the legal recognition of gay marriage. On the one hand, I find it appalling that someone should lose their job for their politics, but on the other hand, I do feel it is the right of a business to hire whomever they want.

Ruins of Guernica, Spanish Civil War.

Vox Populi has fewer reservations, and has issued a war cry. I cannot endorse the idea of a battle between religious and constitutional rights, in part because I believe the two are inseparable and cannot in the end really be in conflict; in part because I believe fervently in both. But he does speak some worldly wisdom: if the government and/or the left really wants to fight religion, it is going to get nasty, and in the end they will not win. The Cristero War in Mexico gives one indication of how this will go. The Spanish Civil War gives another.

The proper and probably most effective way to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again--and perhaps to fend off something worse--is the boycott. As a consumer, if the forced resignation of Eich concerns you, avoid using Mozilla products like FireFox. Free Canuckistan has a list of alternatives.

For Greater Glory: The Real History

A Cristero poster.

Those who have recently seen the new film “For Greater Glory” may be curious, as I was, about the historical background to the film.

The real President Plutarcio Calles.

Calles gives an eerie stiff-armed salute at his swearing-in.

Were things really as bad for Catholics in Mexico as the film suggests? Was it really so black and white? And were the Catholics really as devoted to their religion as all that?

Yes, yes, and yes. It really seems they were.

Cristero banner.

According to the respected French historian Jean Meyer, on whose book The Cristero Rebellion the film was based,

The real Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow--father of Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

“No prisoners were taken; civilians taken as hostages were murdered. Torture was systematic, and was used not only to obtain information but also to prolong suffering, and to oblige Catholics to renounce their faith... To be forced to walk on the flayed sloes of the feet, to be flayed, burned, have their bones broken, to be quartered alive, hung up by their thumbs, garrotted, electrocuted, scorched by blowlamps, racked, subjected to the torture of the boot and the water-torture, stretched out, dragged behind a horse – such was the fate of those who fell into the hands of the Federals.”

The Battle of Tepatitlan--a Cristero victory.

“Churches were desecrated by officers who rode into them on horseback, trampled the Host under the hoofs of their chargers, used the altars as dining tables and turned the building into a stable. Statues of saints were used for target practice, and those of the Virgin were undressed and the soldiers danced with them. The soldiers dressed up in the ecclesiastical vestments, and ate the consecrated Hosts and drank cafe au lait from the chalice.”

A band of Cristeros.

Among the Federales, rape was “systematic.”

Incredibly, some federal officers actually led their troops into battle with the war cry “Viva Satan!”

Catholic rebels hanging from telephone poles, just as in the film.

Was the martyrdom of young Jose Sanchez del Rio exaggerated? Apparently not. He really was offered the chance of clemency for renouncing his faith, and refused. He really was forced to watch the hanging of another Cristero in hopes of breaking his resolve. They really did cut the bottoms of his feet and then march him through the town. He really did draw a cross in the dirt, and kiss it, as he was dying.

The real General Gorostieta wearing his crucifix.

Retired general Enrique Gorostieta really did start out as an agnostic or atheist; he really did convert to Catholicism in the course of the war. He really did wear a crucifix on his chest.

Blessed Miguel Pro, spreading his arms at the moment of his execution.

It is precisely the most “over the top” elements of the film that turn out to be historically verifiable. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction. The critics cannot believe this is not made up.

Blessed Miguel Pro is given the coup de grace.

For Greater Glory: Viva Cristo Rey!

It’s sad and it’s funny. Over the last couple of nights, I have been able to watch the recent movie “For Greater Glory: The True Story of Cristiada.” On Rotten Tomatoes, it scores very low among professional critics: one star, a rating of only 18%. Yet the audience rates it very high: 80% like it. That compares with 87% for Titanic, their top rental.

How can there be such a divergence of opinion between critics and the public? I think it reflects the culture wars. I think the movie critics are giving the film low marks entirely because they disagree with it politically and philosophically, and are probably not even self-aware enough to realize this is the case.

Let’s look at a few of the posted criticisms.

Roger Ebert writes:

“It is well-made, yes, but has such pro-Catholic tunnel vision I began to question its view of events. One important subplot involves a 12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war.”

Hmm… so being too pro-Catholic is “tunnel vision”? It could not possibly be the most accurate view of events? Even if his suspicions are correct, what do they have to do with anything? Getting the history wrong has never been a major issue with Hollywood, has it? Did anyone worry much about the accuracy of “Schindler’s List” or “Inglorius Basterds” (the latter, of course, entirely fictional)? And Ebert has no reason to doubt the history—he just cannot accept it ideologically.

And what is troubling about becoming or celebrating a saint? Surely Ebert is implying that there is something fundamentally wrong with ... being Catholic.

Rotten Tomatoes summarizes the film:

“It has laudable aspirations, but For Greater Glory ultimately fails to fulfill its goals due to an overstuffed script, thinly written characters, and an overly simplified dramatization of historical events.”

Hmm… “an overly simplified dramatization of historical events.” Sounds like Ebert's problem. Wasn’t “Saving Private Ryan” or “The Longest Day” a pretty simplified view of World War II? Didn't they only tell the story from one point of view? Wasn’t “First Blood” a pretty simplified view of the Vietnam War? Was that a major problem? No, it is not that the story is simplified. Name a Hollywood movie that is not white hats vs. black hats. What the critic is saying is that it is not okay to tell a story from the Catholic point of view. The black hats are not supposed to be the leftists and the secularists. The white hats are not supposed to be the Catholics.

“Thinly written characters”? The film shows obvious character development. The adult lead moves from atheism to joyfully giving his life for the Catholic Church. The child lead goes from throwing rotten fruit at the local priest to being canonized. This is “thinly written” to this critic only because it moves in a direction he does not expect and cannot understand, from doubt to faith. He imagines, I suspect, that it is only humanly possible to move from faith to doubt.

The Cristero Flag

The first review quoted on Rotten Tomatoes:

“As generic as the title, this historical drama spares no cliche in depicting Mexico's Cristero War of the late 1920.”

Generic? In fact, the film fits no current Hollywood genre. Cliched? The usual Hollywood fare is nothing if not clichéd. You can almost count on looking up at the screen at about the 1:10 mark and seeing some sort of car chase--a legacy of Mac Sennett and the nineteen teens. In a Hollywood film, you can tell within the first ten minutes of their first appearance who is going to die, and who isn’t, by the end of the film. Not here. One can go on and on.

This film defies almost any Hollywood cliché you could mention. Right down to relatively small details. It has, for example, the adult lead chomping on a cigar repeatedly; a thing so counter to prevailing mores and expectations that the producers saw need to add a disclaimer to the credits explaining that nobody made any money in the film from the display of tobacco products.

And so it goes. It is not that the critics are a bit off about this film. They are 180 degrees off. And yet I think they are on the whoel sincere in feeling there is something fundamentally wrong with the film as a film.

One sees this often in the world: large groups on given issues get things not just a little wrong, but 180 degrees wrong. And often not, it seems, willfully. I think it is strong evidence of the existence of a spiritual entity causing this--a permanent adversary of the truth, a Devil.

Go see For Greater Glory. The Devil does not want you to see it.