Perfect Obedience

milkboys Films, Films & Cinema 35 Comments

Mexican film Obediencia Perfecta (Perfect Obedience) written and directed by Luis Urquiza is a biopic about disgraced priest Marcial Maciel – who used drugs, abused boys, and fathered numerous children, who he also allegedly abused. The movie is creating shockwaves in mainly Catholic Mexico.

After a lifetime surrounded by persistent rumours, in 1997 a group of men publically accused Maciel of sexually abusing them during the 40s and 50s and lodged a formal complaint at the Vatican in 1998. A year later, they were told that the case had been shelved on orders from Pope John Paul II.

Juan Manuel Bernal, who acted in the film, said: “I don’t think that we are looking for scandal or ridicule. We are simply trying to tell a story, to go deep into the subconscious mind of this character, which I think could be interesting for the spectator. Because effectively, we believe that all the world knows the story and most likely somebody read an account of it but has forgotten it. But the awful thing is that it keeps on happening and because of this, I think the film is important.”

In 2006, a year after the death of John-Paul II, a Vatican investigation concluded that the accusations of abuse were true and Pope Benedict ordered Maciel to retire to a life of prayer and penitence. Maciel died two years later at the ripe old age of 88.

Perfect Obedience (Original Title: Obediencia Perfecta)
Release: 2014, Mexico| IMDb | Updates

Comments 35

  1. Post
    Author

    There was a problem with the direct link to this post leading to the attachment page for a picture instead of the actual post (you might have noticed that just the last photo of the post was shown above your comments).

    Unfortunately fixing this made the earlier comments on this post inaccessible since they were technically made on the attachment page of the picture, not the post itself, sorry about that!

  2. I can’t remember exactly what I said the first time, but anyway…

    I have not watched this movie but from the trailer it looks like propaganda. Not all, or perhaps even not a high percentage of sexual relations between priests and boys would fall under the rubric of “abuse” based on the willingness of the people involved. I know at least one man, who is gay, who had consensual sex with a Catholic figure of authority. Only under the feminist aegis would it have been considered abuse.

    The Catholic Church is facing the brunt of the feminist firestorm because it is a symbol of so-called Patriarchy (never mind the centrality of the Virgin Mary to Catholic theology). Feminists think that wherever men get together, they secretly conspire to subjugate women. The truth is that all religious institutions regardless of religion and denomination, and all schools for that matter, have roughly the same incidence of men having relations with boys. The question of whether the men’s conduct was good or bad, or whether the boys ever initiated these experiences, is clearly not going to be spoken during our lifetimes. Feminism has taped all our mouths, so that we may not speak of what maleness really is.

    1. Dude, there’s literally tens of thousands of cases where people came forward and said they were sexually abused by priests and you try to dismiss a film dealing with that topic by saying you know one single case where the sexual contact was consensual?

      Are you crazy???

      Well I guess that you blame feminists for the fact that these cases are finally being dealt with as they should pretty much answers that question.

      Calling something “propaganda” because it deals with sexual abuse… seriously, how deep into the rabbit hole did you go?

      1. As if what happened in those tens of thousands of cases is something that you personally know. If you want to take a hard line view of these cases, you should have a look at the John Jay study, which is the best study of the Catholic Church cases which has ever been produced to my knowledge. That, and the 59+ studies of college students and 7+ random population studies, about so-called “child sex abuse”. I brought that one case of a guy whose experiences were consensual, why? Because, of all the cases I know of involving religous figures of authority, all were consensual. Is that odd? No. Am I crazy? No. I blame feminism for re-casting all of these experiences as horrible abuse, when most of them were not horrible, and many of them were not “abuse” at all. It is done to make all men feel guilty, since the majority of men have the capacity for sexual attraction to boys (see current and ancient cultures in which the majority of men have relationships with boys). The average payout in the United States is over $600k per case now. Incentive to re-cast one’s own story? Absolutely. That is not “finally being dealth with as they should.” That is revising history in a way that guilt-trips men into complying with feminist ideology.

        1. I’d like to see you walk up to a rape victim and tell them their abuse was just a fantasy planted in their head by “feminists”… you’d deserve what you would get in response.

          You’re disgusting.

          1. According to feminism, I have been raped too, based on my age at the time. According to feminism, my rape was worse than most others, because mine was something I initiated, not the older person. Feminism says, in such cases, the older person brainwashes the younger, causing the most cognitive dissonance of any other arrangement. They call it “grooming”, and if I say it wasn’t abuse, they call say I am “victim-blaming”. I cannot count the number of times feminists have said to me “you were raped, you just didn’t know it.” You should examine the nature of your own “disgust.” You’re a guy on a site for people who like boys.

          2. Well putting the discussion aside- his point is that many of those cases are not rape in the eyes of the boys involved. He is not claiming rape victims don’t exist.

    2. Woodworth, these kind of posts are reoccurring here. It has less to do with the (sometimes complicated) truth regarding these cases and much more to do with the feeling of the blog-owner that our society disapprove his feeling for boys as he’s getting older and older and therefore wishing to divert this problematic attention of the society for guys like him to other groups of people (especially if they don’t belong to the same ideological spectrum at all). That’s at least my kitchen sink psychologist guess.

      1. If there is anyone here who thinks in that way, I give them this:

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Socialist.
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

        In the US, the war has moved on from the men who like boys… now it is a war on all college males, who are now wondering how they got into this mess. They are all considered “rapists in waiting.” The latest casualty is Paul Nungesser, a German citizen.

    1. This film is currently in restricted access as it has not been released. Given that it will probably not much, if any money for awhile, I’m not in favor of free distribution until the film maker decides to release it.
      I’m a reviewer and have seen the film. The general story line does not make the relationship abusive, although it acknowledges that some of the priests relationships may have been so. I’ve never run into the feminism angle discussed above and I do agree with it to some extent.
      For anyone who’s interested in stories of boys who seduce men, see Taxi Zum Clos. And of course Mysterious Skin takes the other tack.
      If feminism suggests that all boys are brainwashed to have sex with men, then that’s just stupid and flies in the face of the facts. I had a good friend a number of years ago who told me how, as a 12 year old, he went about having sex with men by ambushing them at a popular rest stop on 95 in Connecticut.

      1. @Oaksong
        “The general story line does not make the relationship abusive, although it acknowledges that some of the priests relationships may have been so.”

        I watched the film earlier today on Vimeo.

        How you can say it did not depict abuse I find a bit strange.
        Though not blatantly in your face it was still inferred throughout the film and the damage to the boy was more than obvious as he was groomed not only for future sexual abuse but was practically brainwashed into absolute subservience to his master under the guise of religion and his own desperate need to be cared for by someone, anyone after being taken from his loving home by this devious religious cabal.

        This truly was the tale of an innocent lamb given onto a den of wolves, no more no less. IMO

  3. ❦My bad, that seems to be collapsing…Go to Vimeo and search:

    (Vimeo)
    Perfect Obedience (Film) OmeU
    from Salzgeber & Co. Medien GmbH PLUS 2 months ago NOT YET RATED
    Mexiko 2014, 99 Minuten
    Ein Film von Luis Urquiza
    Mit Isabel Aerenlund, Sebastián Aguirre, Juan Ignacio Aranda, u.a.

  4. couldn’t reply to your comment above so I’ll do it here:

    you gotta stop denying the existence of rape based on your own expirience. maybe you weren’t raped, good for you. that doesn’t mean no one else was. I was. and I knew I was when it happened, I knew when I tried and failed to forget it and I know it know without any of your mythical feminists ever telling me how to feel.

    your disregard for me and other victims of sexual violence makes me sick.

    and btw I’m pretty sure this is a site for gay teens, not for pedos…

    1. If you want to have a pissing contest over who is the bigger victim, you will see that according to feminist logic, I was raped too. In my case, I initiated and was in control the whole time. Feminism holds that my experience damaged me worse than in cases where there was force, because there is no such thing as a boy who would ever want sex with an adult – therefore I must have been “groomed,” and I must therefore have more “cognitive dissonance” than any other cases. If you read what I wrote, I never denied the existence of “rape”, but pointed out that feminism thrives off of calling things rape that are not really rape. And here you are saying I somehow erased your experience, when it is the other way around.

  5. After reading all the above, I agree a lot with what Wordworth has to say, EXCEPT THIS: I wouldn’t label it “feminism” but instead, religiousity. Yes, feminism has something to do with all this “pedophilia” hype and scare, but mostly it’s just the off shoot of all the “political correctness” crap that is going around this subject. It’s so much safer to side with the “pedophilia” scare than to genuinely think and discuss what’s really going on psychologically and emotionally with BOTH the boys who were “abused” (and most of the time, I seriously question that concept) and the “abuser” which in PC jargon, anyone who is older than the other.

    Feminism is more about establishing individual rights (particuarly on the feminine side). Laying blame to ALWAYS the person who is the older is just based on the combination of religiousity and politcal correctness because it “plays well” in the media who usually screw up all the FACTS regarding each individual case.

    Most religious countries (and America, in spades) refuse to “hark back” to Grecian and Roman times where BL was common so that the younger could learn skills from the more experienced as well as any sexual pleasure.

    There are NUMEROUS documented FACTS that many of these relationships were either started by the younger or as Wordworth pointed out, were just as consentual as any adult relationship — NOT ALL of course, but enough that throws out most of the PC psycho-babble.

  6. What most people seem to believe and accept (and our sensationalizing stupid media confirm to a hilt) is that anyone under the age of 16 is not or should not be allowed to have any sexual feelings toward anyone else, be they younger, about same age or even older — EITHER male or female. And it gets even worse if the “younger” is 14 or younger in age.

    And our societies just can’t cope with the knowledge AND FACTS that even younger BOTH females and males not just “can” but DO HAVE sexual feelings. This is something that The Fosters is attempting to address, but not in the best way and certainly not enough to satisfy a sex-crazed society such as America’s.

    1. The Fosters is a feminist LGBT fantasy-land fraud. Two same-aged boys making out almost never become two gay men who like men later on. If they like other boys, it is unlikely they will identify as “gay” later (most “become” straight or keep on liking boys). If they were “gay,” they would probably be like the boy in Shameless, who does it with men.

      1. “The Fosters is a feminist LGBT fantasy-land fraud.”

        See, THIS is where you take your “feminist ideas” a bit too far. And I said that show isn’t all that successful regarding that relationship. And again, you’re a bit wrong about it also: “Connor” is being labeled as GAY (their characters are both probably around 14 or just over that by this upcoming season). And “Jude” is being protrayed as a young teen THAT KNOWS WHAT HE WANTS and throughout this show, he’s been showing signs as being “gay” without really labeling it as such until he says “He’s my boyfriend” (and we all know that can easily mean just that they are “best” friends).

        Fraud? That’s going a bit too far. But the show does take “drama” a bit heavily with that same family. Also, remember, this show is STILL CONTROLLED by any religious corporation, so any “straying” from their “scripts” has to be done with extreme caution, to say the least.

  7. I’d better clarify a few things before the volcano erupts on this blog.

    NEITHER Wordworth or I am claiming that all or even most boys in these situations (catholic or other religions, or just other “civil” relationships) were NOT raped. Of course many are. And also, there’s a great many of these “rape victims” who are just out for their “piece of the pope’s riches” as their reason for claiming and accusing someone.

    I remember reading several years back about one such claim: the “victim IS NOW a police officer and has been with the police force for over 15 years, but ONLY NOW he is claiming he was “raped” by some cleric. He claimed he didn’t know about the “legalities” of this before now. ONLY NOW …… and with the police force who should KNOW THE LAWS regarding this subject — after all, he could be called on to arrest another person who is being blamed for the same thing.

    When I was 15-1/2 (about), I was “raped” by the older boy in my room when I was in a private, religious boarding school. I put quotes around it because what happened to me has been called “friendly rapes” because both parties (only about 2 years apart in age) were known to each other and could have been known as “friends” by most who would recollect such relationships.

    Did I like it? NO. Did I try to stop it? YES in the only way I knew how back then since he was larger and stronger than I was — I clenched my anus when he put his erect penis into it and I was just “successful” enough to “squeeze his penis out” and was able to subsequently keep him from entering again.

    Did I report it? OF COURSE NOT. This was in TEXAS ….. and no younger kid would “survive” being the “snitch” of a popular football player in that school. Did I resent him for the remaining amount of time he was in the school before graduation? NO. I “got over it” and came to realize (to me, anyway) that he was just expressing his “horniness” and desires at that moment. He had seduced me while I was on my bed earlier before we went to take a shower (when/where it happened). So he was “friendly” about the entire situation and I didn’t know enough about what was happening and how to prevent such a thing.

    Was it “consentual”? NO WAY. But, I don’t think what he did warranted any jail or prison time, either. Sometimes, (in this case for me), it just boils down to “boys will be boys” and we simply get over it.

    1. And I will point out that feminism since the 1970s and 1980s defines your experience as rape. The way males and females experience sex is totally different, in reality, but feminism has taught since the 1970s and 1980s (though textbooks like Hyde and DeLamater) that female sexuality is the same as male sexuality. That is one fiction which has led us to where we are today. Our society’s views on sexual experiences are taken exclusively from how the majority of women view their own sexual experiences. Study after study after study shows that males and females differ greatly in how they experience sex; so what did feminism do? They demonstrably, in Women’s Studies, made a tenet out of throwing away the scientific method (because it was created by men).

      1. @Wordworth:
        “And I will point out that feminism since the 1970s and 1980s defines your experience as rape.”

        First, I didn’t say it wasn’t rape. I just used the word/term/description what a lot of psychiatrists are using for my situation (and those similar to it) — “friendly rape” because I knew the person personally and he was/could be put into the “friend” category as opposed to any stranger.

        Second, it isn’t just “feminism” that defines what happened to me as rape, it’s the LEGAL definition as well. I’m not arguing this on any “technical basis”, but instead, was pointing out that I was not “traumatized” by this incident, and I just brushed it off partly because I wasn’t injured (physically or mentally or emotionally) in any way and partially because of the environment I was living in at that time (Texas/religious).

        And, again, I’ll state that you’re confused between “feminism” and “political correctness” (within the context of a sexual incident). And you’re wrong about feminists not wanting individual equality — that was the very platform feminism was based on during the 70s and beyond.

        You seem to keep looking for some “scapegoat” and you’ve labelled it “feminism”.

        1. I’m not at all confused, my friend. I’ve been following this issue for decades. Feminism since the 1970s has been about female superiority (definitely not equality), belief that men conspired throughout history to subjugate women through an imagined system called patriarchy (a concept they bastardized from Marxism by replacing “capitalism” with “patriarchy”, and used to literally co-opt the civil rights movement), a total ignorance of the historical male gender role (male disposability, providership, lack of self-actualization, men as success objects, women as holding ransom men’s access to sex in order to have power over men), a self-serving ideology which says gender differences are social constructions, and as part of the latter a complete mis-casting of male sexuality. It lies about domestic violence being a problem for women caused by men (roughly 50% is committed by women against men); it lies about the gender wage gap (when researchers control for women’s choices, the gap goes away); it lies about the “trauma” caused by adult-minor sex (by intentionally ignoring confounding variables which, when controlled for, make any measurable “trauma” disappear); not to mention mother’s violence against children; feminism pushed in the 1970s and 1980s for calling consensual cases rape based on feminist theories of power differential. In each of these areas there are mountains of widely available published evidence. Abrahamic religiousity has been around for thousands of years, and it has not gotten stronger since 1970. It did not get stronger in 1990 when the war against men who love boys (and the boys who love men) started to get really bad. What happened around 1990? It was the exact moment in history when formerly-radical feminist ideas became mainstream in the US… at exactly that moment, the feminists went after the Catholic Church and caused a crisis for them.

  8. ❅Watched the movie…
    He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
    Isaiah 53:7

  9. The number of old men in this thread scared of what they think is feminism is hilarious :D

    You’d think as gay people they’d have empathy for the struggle towards equal rights but no, instead they decide to act like bratty 4-year-olds throwing tantrums because they see the world floating away in which they were allowed to act like apes and get whatever they wanted by exploiting others and then justifying it to themselves with conspiracy theories about brainwashed abuse victims.

    News flash: feminism has nothing to do with any of your problems, women are not out to get you and both physical and emotional abuse were never right no matter the social climate or excuses people came up with.

    1. There are no old men in this thread. I’m sorry to inform you but feminism is not, and never was, about equal rights. You think women are not out to get you. If you’re on this site, it’s only a matter of time before you figure out that feminism hates you already.

      Feminism is a collective belief that men silently conspired during all of history to subjugate women financially and sexually for men’s benefit; a belief that gender differences are all socially constructed; a belief that women are superior to men; a belief that “masculinity” (men being boorish) is to blame. The more correct view of history is that the male gender role consisted of males being obligated, for the sake of women, to lose control of their own self-actualization, thereby to sacrifice themselves (bodily) or through hard work to save women’s and children’s lives, or to accumulate wealth, so that women could compete for the men with the most resources so as to provide a financially stable home for her children. Since 1990 feminism has become mainstream almost entirely by demonizing men who like boys.

  10. Looks good though films and books about Sadistic Brothers in Catholic Schools and orphanages are ten a penny now.

  11. P.S I have watched it on Vimeo where you can get the whole film (though in Spanish only without subs) it is a good watch and I would not mind the DVD but it is not as shocking or brutal as “Song for a Raggy Boy” where a sadistic brother beats a boy to death, the whole thing gets covered up and he and his rapist sidekick just get sent on to Africa and US respectively.

  12. To all…
    ☞There are two versions on Vimeo,
    the one I mentioned above has English subtitles.

    The link kept failing but if you search it at
    Vimeo as below you’ll get the right version:

    Perfect Obedience (Film) OmeU
    from Salzgeber & Co. Medien GmbH PLUS 2 months ago NOT YET RATED
    Mexiko 2014, 99 Minuten
    Ein Film von Luis Urquiza
    Mit Isabel Aerenlund, Sebastián Aguirre, Juan Ignacio Aranda, u.a.

  13. The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on man/boy sex exploitation.

    One of the most virulently strident and conservative evangelical churches, the Church of Christ, used to have a ‘grooming mill’ of a college atmosphere (David Lipscomb Univ. in Nashville Tennessee) during the 1960’s and 1970’s when the Dean of Students was a closeted homosexual. He nurtured, groomed, and facilitated a carefully cultivated bevy of young freshmen boys entering college that were hand-selected, “chosen” if you will, from multi-generational group of families, many whose uncles and even fathers had attended David Lipscomb in years past. I was one of the selected group of 15 or 20 boys that entered school in the fall of 1970.

    The dean was a very genteel and cultivated southerner whose family came from old money. He was well over 60 years old when I first met him. Tall and thin, he was a kind man.

    At any rate, we had many get-togethers doing my freshman year, both formal and informal. Most of us were either 17 or 18, so we were “legal”, but the grooming had taken place years earlier doing the grooming process, and many of were only in our early teens (13 or 14).

    I was NOT raped.

    Most of us were seduced, seduced by being allowed to associate with older high school or even college boys, and the sex was great for a young boy. I participated eagerly.

    So, for what it is worth, I am happily gay today (in my early 60’s) and look back fondly on my early adventures at the “church school”.

  14. Thanks Devil I will try the subtitled version. I watched the Spanish only one snd probably missed a lot due to my limited understanding of the language. I found it a bit bizarre though that the priest could afford the lifestyle he did: drugs, fancy Mercedes etc but anyway.

    The film was not as shocking as Raggy Boy or the Boys of St Vincent which showed rape scenes. From this film it appeared the boy tossed the priest off once and then there were hints that the priest tried to pull his underwear down for what appeared to be a blow job on the beach but the boy refused. Still bad mind you.

  15. The boy is an excellent actor. His real name is Sebastián Boeda. He’s my neighbor

Leave a Reply to Penboy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *