Not so much a disappointment . . .

. . . because, well, it's complicated.

Okay, Roman Polanski had non-consensual sex with a 13 year old girl 32 years ago, and then (when it looked like his plea bargain might not get honored) skipped the country. There are three crimes to address here; non-consensual sex (rape), sex with a 13 year old (statutory rape) and skipping the country (doubtless has a serious criminal name, but let's just call it "running the Hell away").

And now the Americans have apprehended him (or had him apprehended). None of this is really news, but I wanted to bring you up to speed.

What is also not news is the fact many Hollywood elites have defended him, signing a petition which objects to him being held in Switzerland for one or more of these crimes.

Now, I am not going to get into the back and forth of this issue. There is a case to be made that Polanski (and all people who have crimes in their past they have avoided justice for) should be apprehended and placed on trial. There is also a case to be made that Polanski has been a "fugitive" for 32 years and that there has been no concerted effort to apprehend him in those 32 years, so maybe this was completely inappropriate? There is not a case to make that the original crime was not a problem (even if the girl "did not look 13" as many are saying, she said "NO". Having sex with a woman of any age when she says "NO" is rape - very simple and clear). Also; he skipped the country. That is a crime right there - even if the 43 days or so he served in jail are deemed sufficient punishment for his rape.

So, in short - I agree that Polanski should be apprehended and put on trial for whatever crime is still outstanding. I think he should have been apprehended earlier, but - well, if it has been 32 years and nothing has been done, that doesn't mean something shouldn't be done now. We live in a world where you deal with the now and try to make the future better, not a world of recriminations and looking backward.

I can, however, see some of the arguments the other side is making. I don't agree with them, but I can see them. Some of the arguments, however, make no sense to me and are abhorrent.

So, I will not be talking about the arguments made - the foolishness of saying "she looked older" or "was very flirty" or whatever. Or saying that he is a great artiste and so he should be allowed to do this sort of thing. I won't even engage with the idiocy and racism of this being the action of an "angry America". Not going to do it - those arguments are dumb as a bag of hammers and don't even deserve to be heard. The only valid argument for not apprehending Polanski would be "Why now? It hasn't been done for a third of a century!" And that argument, as I said above, is very weak - just because you have failed to be responsible for 11680 days doesn't mean you can't man up and do the right thing on the 11681st!

No, this blog post is specifically about Monica Bellucci, and to explain something.

It is her 45th birthday today - happy birthday, Monica! And many more! Seriously, and many more! I think you will need the years.

Monica has signed the petition calling for Polanski's release. I have tried to find out why - if she gave a statement or reason why - but I couldn't. I suppose her reason is the the usual "mean America / he's an artiste!" one.

Everyone knows I like Monica Bellucci - by which I mean I think she is very beautiful and a very talented actress. I have never, ever, ever, ever said I agree with her politics, religion, ethics or morality. This event throws this into sharp focus, and also teaches me something interesting.

I have often used Monica as an example of the difficulty of boycotting movies or companies to avoid support of evil. She was in The Passion of the Christ and commanded a large salary. So, good Catholics go to see it - but she is an outspoken opponent of the Church on many issues. One particular example; she posed naked while pregnant with her daughter Deva in protest against Italian laws that forbade in vitro fertilization being used by unmarried couples. She appears in many movies nude or in sex scenes (which is why, ironically enough, I haven't actually watched that many of her films!)

But this seems to be something else. She argues against a law which - in fact - seems idiotic. I mean, if you are going to allow the grave evil of in vitro fertilization, why not permit it to be used by unmarried couples? A country which allows in vitro at all has already started chipping away at marriage! That is like banning whiskey, but not gin, from the kids' picnic. She is simply demonstrating the inevitable conclusion of her views - wrong though they are.

And she appears nude. So does everyone else, practically. It is not considered taboo any more. Of course, it is still wrong to do what she does, but - in some way - it seems not as bad as supporting a rapist. Even though these are all serious matters (in many ways, formally defying the Church's support for the in vitro law is the worst and most dangerous sin) the support for a rapist just seems more.

Liza told me about it, and I told her I was not surprised. Monica has a track record (as shown above) of these sort of things. She has a very faulty moral compass. She sells her body to the highest bidder with certain limitations. The fact those limitations are physical intimacy does not change what she does - the difference is simply a matter of scale.

So, I was not surprised. And I was not disappointed - which I was surprised about. Because although I know she is a morally deficient individual who is opposed to what I stand for (and is, ergo, opposed to the Truth), I have always liked her, admired her. I expected to be hurt and offended and wounded, to feel betrayed - illogical though that would be.

I found that was not the case. And I have now realised why.

Monica Bellucci is a beautiful and talented woman. But she is not someone I admire per se. It is an unconscious difficulty when I hear her speak and she does not have the cut-glass, mouth-full-of-chocolate-and-cream English accent of a Narnian noble. When I do expect the Italian accent, it is with the proviso she will immediately begin plotting politics and the piloting of hundred-tonne nuclear-powered warmachines.

Monica Bellucci has, to me, ceased to really be her. Actually, that is not true. She never really was her. What she was - and is - is simply a shape and a face, an appearance which has been loaned to Elizabeth Studdock and Monica Pallavicini. I look on her with much the same concern and worry and disdain as I do anyone opposed to the faith and who is charting a course away from the light of Christ.

I have sort of known this for months now, although it did not crystallize in my mind until today, when I found I did not feel wounded by her "betrayal". I knew she was far from where she should be, but until today I did not realize that I was not hurt by that as I would be treachery, but rather I was just sad about it.

For months now, I have been praying for her at every Mass - offering prayers and my holy communion for her conversion (and those of others). I don't know if it will do any good - and I do worry; is my praying for her an unhealthy fixation on her? I don't know her, and I have admitted my only interest is because of her beauty and skill.

But, then again, someone has to pray for her. And I have to pray for someone. I direct my prayers to that end. I could direct them to someone else's salvation - and then that person might be saved and she not (the problem of petitioning the Lord by prayer notwithstanding!)

My prayers for her are fine. I just need to watch myself and make sure my own motivations are pure - a desire to see her saved, rather than a desire to see her.

I think, having experienced surprise at not feeling betrayed today, I am in a good position. She is beautiful, she is lovely - but so are spiderwebs and Mandelbrot fractals. And I have come to realize there is more danger of me falling in love with Elizabeth Studdock or Monica Pallavicini than Mrs Vincent Cassel.

PS. I did not mention this, because it seemed irrelevant, although interesting - but Monica Bellucci, at 45, is the precisely the same age as Polanski's victim. Added to the fact she has featured in two movies with plots revolving around violence towards women - Irreversible and Malena - her support of a man who raped a 13 year old is even more puzzling.