Hard Moral Questions Answered

Rating: 8/10 (31 January 2009)

Gee,thanks Clint! After these endless exposes of crimes by sex maniacs among Catholic clergy and their lazy bishop enablers who moved them from parish to parish because they are loath to lose "workers" or simply out of "old boy" sympathies, it is a relief to see a film sympathetic to Catholics, even as we laymen are equally to blame for being equally lazy blind sheep.
It is also refreshing to have Polish Americans depicted as good Catholics instead of the usual Fr. O'Malley (Bing Crosby) Irish types.
It is hard to classify this film as that would be pigeon-holing it as a tragedy, a paean to heroism and therefore a triumph, or simply a good comedy. There are elements of all these. Eastwood made a courageous choice to pay no heed to political correctness as ethnic jokes came fast and funny in the film. The hard ribbing about some American perceptions of Asian diets were hilarious. Sample: Eastwood declining an Asian girl's invitation to a banquet: "No thanks and keep your hands off my dog." "We only eat cats," the girl retorted. In fairness, almost everybody gets hit - even white folks especially "Micks" and "Pollacks." Blacks get it too although unspoken and almost subliminally as gangbang rap music is associated with street hoodlums.
Most important, the main character, Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is portrayed as a good Catholic although not what most people would picture in their minds: the rosary clutching, daily mass going, ascetic who goes about hands pressed together in perpetual pious devotion. Not that there is anything wrong with that but it's fun to see a crusty, beer-swilling, cussing contrary old man turn out to be a good person.
Now for the hard moral questions: Kowalski goes to confession. He doesn't confess the fact that he beat up a Hmong toughie a few days earlier. Obviously, he didn't think that was a sin because he did it to stop the punk's gang from continuously hunting down Thao, the Hmong youth trying to straighten out his life. Educated armchair moralists may say "the end does not justify the means" but remember, Kowalski is just a retired auto line worker and part-time repairman. Still another seeming lapse of conscience: As he tried to dissuade Thao from embarking on mindless vengeance, he intimated that in the Korean War, he shot a young boy (soldier) who was probably scared and just trying to surrender. He didn't include that in his confession. No problem. His perception of that wartime incident is a recollection quite probably colored by post traumatic stress disorder, old age and failing health. In the heat of battle, he was just shooting at enemy soldiers as he was force-trained automatically to do. Kowalski must have known that was the case. That's why he saw no need to confess it. I believe Christ Himself would have directly told him "Ego te absolvo..."
Here's the spoiler: John 15:13. That's exactly how the movie ended.