During my formative years, my mother made me attend church fairly regularly. I had to sit in the pew for the first several years, but when I got old enough, I was ushered into the world of an altar boy. (For those uninitiated, an altar boy (or girl) generally assists the priest during the Eucharist Mass by carrying candles, holding liturgical books, ringing bells, or preparing the altar.)
I didn’t mind being an altar boy because it got me up and moving around. Strangely, I also liked being part of the process and procession that was undertaken during Sunday services. In hindsight, it was a lot to ask of a young boy to sit perfectly still for an hour or more, which is probably why priests eventually roped the younger boys into the activity.
I took the responsibilities of being an altar boy seriously but also found ways to be mischievous. Whenever I interacted with our priest, I was careful to conduct myself with the utmost respect, especially when I was visible to the church assembly. But when we were tucked into the corners of the sanctuary, unseen by the congregation, all bets were off.
The worst thing an altar boy could do was get caught laughing during the service. The priests frowned on it, the participants frowned on it, the choir director frowned on it, and even some of the other altar boys frowned on it. Because of this, we knew that it was forbidden territory… and that made it all the more appealing.
I was especially susceptible to these taboo events, and on more than one occasion, I cracked while trying to get another kid to laugh. When one of us broke, the priest would walk over and firmly squeeze us on the shoulder, signifying that we were corrupting a religious moment. He would skillfully do this without a break in his speech and in such a way that no one in the congregation noticed the transgression.
But I can’t lie. When my altar boy tenure was over, I was immensely relieved. By that point, I had intellectually moved on from my religious upbringing. And while I went on to study philosophy in college, with a courseload that featured such prominent religious thinkers as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther, I slowly adopted a more atheistic viewpoint.
I read plenty of atheist books, specifically anything by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, whom I regarded as beautifully adept religious skeptics. This strengthened my belief system and made me wholly prepared to debate anyone willing to jump into the “Does God exist?” ring. Not surprisingly, I was also surrounded by like-minded friends and family.
Looking back, it was easy to take an atheistic stance. I had few profound troubles in my life that might challenge the narrative. And when I was confronted with immense beauty, like looking into the night sky or across a vast ocean horizon, I simply chalked it up to the wonder of nature. That was good enough for me.
I didn’t realize it at the time, but my arguments against the existence of God were based on poor definitions. And my criticisms of the Bible were of the same ilk. It wasn’t until I began to immerse myself in some alternative study that I started to question my strongly held beliefs. Maybe God wasn’t the deity I had formulated in my mind as a child. Maybe “It” is something altogether different?
No one has challenged my belief system more than the author-lecturer, Jordan Peterson. Famous for his monumental manuscript, “12 Rules for Life,” Peterson went deep with his latest tome, “We Who Wrestle with God,” which I just finished reading. In this manuscript, Peterson explores biblical stories and how they formed the foundation of the Western world. Admittedly, his arguments have caught me off guard and forced me to contemplate an alternative definition of God that I had never considered – and that alone has been enlightening.
God is certainly on the docket with this week’s feature, “Conclave.” It is a deep dive into the religious underpinnings of the Catholic Church and a review of what transpires when a pope dies, and the world’s cardinals gather to elect their next leader.
Directed by Edward Berger, “Conclave” is a suspenseful political thriller set in the Vatican. It’s got a stellar cast (including Ralph Fiennes and Stanley Tucci), stunning cinematography, and an intense musical score that adds to the tension that punctuates the film.
I was dismayed (if not shocked) by the film’s conclusion. Outside of that, “Conclave” was an interesting ride worth checking out.
A timely “B-” for “Conclave,” now available to stream on Amazon Prime.
Got a question or comment for Dom? You can email him at [email protected].
