I Miss The Noise

The historical culture of cunnilingus is wrapped up very heavily in religion, more specifically and contextually Christianity, and is, honestly, only "historical" to a certain degree. Non-procreative sex was, and still is in certain circles, deemed a sinful act by many forms of Christianity, just as adultery and fornication were/are, and this view continues to be a rather hardline basis for their tirades against the lgbtqia+, sex workers, and other "delinquent" or "deviant" sexual acts. More than that, it was only in 2003 that anti-Sodomy laws that criminalized cunnilingus, along with other nonprocreative sex acts, were revoked in the US and even today there are still states, including Mississippi - the setting for Sinners, that contain the anti-Sodomy statutes' wording in their books.

I think the crux of the matter is that people don't seem to really get what celibacy - in the context of Catholic priesthood - is for. What it's supposed to mean. I see it talked about/ written about (in fanfic generally) as this stupid oppressive rule whose primary purpose is shame and that's just not true.

And the celibacy clause of Catholic priesthood was not established because Sex is/was seen as shameful per se (as long as it was in wedlock of course), but because you are supposed to give up that sort of intimacy/ family connection so you can devote yourself fully to your community/ congregation

It's about

a) not having split loyalties - the church understood that in moments of crisis a Good Christian would choose to prioritise their family, but the priest should always prioritise his congregation, because that's what being in service to god (should) mean - helping the flock. So if they didn't have kids, the congregation are their kids (in the literal sense of charges) and therefore their priority.

b) it's a sacrifice of ego- you give up thinking/ acting for your own interests , to serve god - faith and you acting in accordance to its principles of service and Support etc to the community comes first in your life now and that comes with sacrifices of the individual level - seen beautifully in the Louise scene and the main driver if conflict between jud and blanc personally

C) hilariously it also was historically about inheritance - churches have always been donation based and esp in its infancy of being a small, oppressed religion it was imperative that the wealth of the church stays the wealth of the church - but once again it is just human to want to give it to your children/ have your children feel they are entitled to this (and looking at our late medieval son's of popes/ cardinals very much getting rich off the church money clearly a legitimate fear lol)

These things - putting your own fulfillment/ego before your ministry, putting your children before the flock and inheritance issues are all things that Wick does, because he's not a good priest, he doesn't feel that it requires any sacrifice or humility on his part, that he should just get the power without any of the responsibility/personal restraints.

That is why it's so important to me on a narrative/ theme level that Jud doesn't do that, that he doesn't just go "oh I'm a good priest but that man really do have the bluest eyes WHATEVER, lol." As if he - like all the example of bad priests - feels like he can pick and choose, that actually priesthood requires no sacrifice.

But because he's not like Wick, he understands that he's taken on a mantle of service, he wants to do the work and he's going to gladly take on the sacrifices that come with it, because that's what choosing a life of service means.

But he also shouldn't feel shame for any attraction (another popular trope lol) because in the catechism of the (modern) church, it's never wrong to love, to see and feel, it's the act that becomes the sin.

So for all of these reasons, to me, it is pivotal that Jud does not "stray" as it's called in the movie, because the point is that he wants to be a priest, it's his purpose in life, he's a good priest precisely because he also understands that it comes with a level of sacrifice of self to the community you serve.

The other characters' sacrifices are not only looked at through the lens of their specific contexts, but also through the lens of corruption, or manipulation, with the knowledge of servitude as expectation and devotion as forcible, whereas Jud's aren't. All of the women, in one way or another, make a choice in their sacrifices but all of them are also manipulated to do so, and this has a big impact on how we view what they did and what they gave up. We don't really seem to do this with Jud though and it caught my attention ... His constant sacrificial attempts at turning himself in are stopped by Benoit due to the fact he is innocent of this specific accusation but the actual core of his attempts, the meaning behind it, the belief, is left to thread throughout his entire being without much pushback from the narrative itself; which seems to play into the way his choice to take a vow of celibacy is still seen as, face value, a "holy", "institutional", and righteous "destruction of his ego" - whereas all of these things get questioned with the other characters. All of these women have to go through a certain level of ego destruction to get to the point they're at, all of their ego destruction is seen as holy by those around them exactly because it's sacrificial, and all of their sacrificial ego destructed roles are seen as institutional on some level (either in the vein of fitting their "feminine roles" of service, or in putting trust in the church, or both) but none of that makes up for what they're actually going through and what they've been pressured into. Jud's decision to be celibate can be a "righteous" sacrifice that he continues to make for the rest of his life (just like these women's sacrifices could have been under different circumstances), or it could be something held over his head and demanded of him (just like these women's sacrifices are in their actual circumstances), but I do think to say him "straying" would be a fundamental break of his character isn't examining what that choice really means.

Putting his flock first isn't inherently negated by him having a sexual relationship, or interaction, unless we are steadfastly locking him into the institutional laws of it all (and, therein, ignoring the fact he himself does not do this already). These three aspects of loyalty, ego destruction, and immaterialism being building blocks of why this vow of celibacy is seen as so important in the church do not mean that it is the end all be all. Jud displays these traits in spades throughout the entire film, even to a fault, and I do not think they would disappear under the touch of sexual intimacy; Not because of a specific view I have but because he does not display his sacrifices in the same way most of the audience has been taught to expect him to. Jud is an almost inherently self sacrificial character, yes, it feels almost bone deep with him, like it's hardwired into the back of his brain and tangled up in a mess of selfless kneeling offering and animal fighting instinct, but its essence is not rooted in the same place that "sacrifice" is typically depicted as coming from culturally. His loyalty to the flock is not a sacrifice in the sense that it's painful for him, that it's arduous for him, that it's a weight on his shoulders that he has to make the conscious decision to pursue anyways, it just is. It's in him. It's innate. He wants to do it. The example of him and Louise is a perfect depiction of this because, despite the fact he once again rebukes himself for his behavior throughout the scene before she asks him to pray for her, his instant response is to sit down with her for however long it takes, regardless his own looming fate, and pray. It is a sacrifice in the sense that he loses precious time in a quickly unfolding makeshift murder trial against him, but it is not a typical "sacrifice" in that he has to make some big effort to do it. He just ... Does. Again, he's very self critical afterwards, but despite him saying he was being pulled away from his true purpose that doesn't actually change the fact that he instantly snaps right back into it the second somebody needs him. This is the same thing with his ego destruction where never once does it seem like a "hard" thing for him to do but rather like it's second nature, like admitting his faults and taking the blame is simply what he does. There's so many instances throughout the movie where he does not have to tell these people the things that he's telling them, and yet he does. He constantly incriminates himself in things that did not have to be admitted precisely because he wants to. He wants to be devoid of ego, not only because he's self-sacrificial but because, so often, that openness, and earnestness, and trust allows for others to feel safe. Again, even his immaterialism is present throughout the movie as just a part of him. At no point does he ever have any interest in the monetary worth of Eve's Apple, because this too is not a typical "sacrifice". He doesn't have to fight against some level of greed, he doesn't have to force himself to give it up, and he doesn't have to worry about being tempted by this "root of all evil" that's haunted the entirety of this little church town since before he was even born, and ruined so many innocent lives, simply because that urge isn't in him. He doesn't struggle with it. He very easily makes the sacrifice of vesting the shimmering thing in the chest of his hand-made crucifix, because he wants to. It's much more important to him as the physical representation of not only the church as the true gem, but of the way the past can be changed and taken into the future with much more love and care, than it is as a monetary object.

Jud's innate state of sacrifice is not in pushing himself to some burning limit, but in simply being who he is. There does not seem to be a great deal of struggle in his actual good deeds, but there is a semi-self-imposed great deal of struggle in his perception of sacrifice. Jud's perceived required sacrifices are what cause his constant painful self debasement, and his internal struggle with his emotions, due to his belief that he is inherently violent, and dangerous, and will become so if he can't always be in control, which results in the tension of his body language, and his self-constraint, and ultimately his sacrifice of his own physical form in its natural state for the comfort of others ... There is a clear aspect of pain here, of weight on his shoulders, of guilt, and shame, and this incessant need to make up for it, and that is what we're used to seeing when we see sacrifice, but none of this is required and none of this actually makes him any better - At a certain point it's simply the veneration of punishment over purity, and Jud's incessant guilt complex plays easy into those hands.

Now, it's not shocking that the little Catholic priest feels guilt for things he shouldn't, but it was a bit shocking to me that the movie kind of just ... Let him. There's not a whole lot of resolution for his internal, emotional turmoil by the end because he is very accepting of his role as sacrificial lamb, whereas he is not for anyone else. He's very empathetic to all of the women's suffering and their sacrifices, to the point that he's keeping his heart open to long-dead Grace even when all he knows of her is the idea of her as a whore, and instantly utters his soft-hearted "that poor girl" when hearing the rest of the story, all while holding Martha in her last moments with nothing but mercy and forgiveness in his heart despite the way she's actively hunted him down and made a near martyr out of him in the last couple of days, and he's hearing her recount the way she's done this before to someone even more vulnerable than him who he's also feeling empathy for in that same moment, but he doesn't ever really question his own suffering, or his own sacrifices, or his own unnecessary flagellation for being human and being hurt - Because despite the movies' interrogation of the idea of "holy sacrifice" and the ways it's used for oppression and abuse, it still gives in to the trained response, the societally in-grained, culturally religious, view of sacrifice as something inherently painful. We ignore his sacrificial nature until it bleeds. This is the kind of sacrifice we're so used to seeing, and this is the kind of sacrifice we spend the whole movie questioning when it comes to anyone else, but this is the kind of sacrifice we're just left with still rattling around inside Jud's head at the end ... I dislike that, personally, but ... Anyways ...

The view that he has to uphold every institutional law to be a good priest is a very static one, and while I understand the idea that him picking and choosing which rules to follow is a way to position him alongside Wicks, I'd have to ask: What about him being forward thinking? There are many institutional aspects of Catholicism that Jud seems fundamentally opposed to, such as the implication he's rather lax on the sexual aspect (i.e. his reaction to Wicks' vitriol about an unwed woman with a child and how we see her return when Jud has become the leader, or purposefully neglecting to comment on Grace's reported "whoredom" when others do), or even just personally misaligned with, such as his "storytelling" view of religion rather than an actual traditional belief in Christ or the church history, but these would also be seen as "picking and choosing" what he's willing to sacrifice for his life as a priest, would they not? If he's chosen a life of servitude to his pope, and his church, and his bishop, and his flock, and taken his vow of obedience, then his own personal views on matters should come second, no? Ultimately this would simply put him in a place of upholding a flawed system and partaking in its abuses (i.e. the unexamined problem of Langstrom's dislike for vitriol in the church but allowance of it), or being abused himself (i.e. Jud's nine month long verbal sexual harassment at the hands of his bishop, Wicks), again, circling back around into the same vein of all the sacrifices of service this movie spends so long critiquing ... It's a breaking down of not only one's ego but one's identity, one's choices, and one's own beliefs beneath the idea that servitude is the end-all-be-all of holy, egoless loyalty, and this is exactly how you get a system of abuse that masquerades as higher powers and pious little pawns.

To get right to the point, the comparison here in the implication that Jud would be a "bad priest" like Wicks if he were to have a sexual relationship is a rather harsh one, as it positions a personal intimate decision alongside a history of systemic abuse, and contradicts the original comparison made by the movie itself. The movie parallels Grace and Wicks in their acts of fornication, in their consummation of illegitimate children, and their following actions after the original "sexually immoral" act is done. Interestingly enough the original "sin" is not the point of contention, as Grace is viewed as an innocent "poor girl" who's gotten unjustly persecuted and demonized by everyone around her, with her status as a "whore" directly questioned, and Jud himself never passing any condemning judgement on her for being an unwed mother. Wicks, on the other hand, is directly condemned, not because of his broken vow, or his unwed intimacy, or his fathering of an illegitimate child, but because of what he does afterwards. His lies, his deceit, his abuse of Vera in manipulating her into taking on the burden of mothering Cy without thanks or help, his continuous demonization of both Grace and every woman like her while maintaining his higher-than-thou self aggrandization and living this double life, and his refusal to take responsibility for what he's done or the child he's brought into the world despite his constant rebuking of the mere idea of such a thing in anyone else ... The parallel here is not in denouncing their "sexual immorality", as deemed by the church, seeing as Grace's actual guilt for unwed sex is vehemently questioned throughout the entire movie and she is deemed irrevocably innocent by the end, but in depicting their differences in everything that follows. That is where the guilt lies. Saying Jud would be a "bad priest" like Wicks if he were to have a sexual relationship/interaction is ignoring the actual judgement that has been placed on Wicks, not for the act of "sexual immorality" but for the hypocrisy of doing so while degrading everyone else around him for the same thing, and by ignoring the actual judgement that has been placed on Wicks there is an innate misunderstanding, or misinterpreting, of the judgement that is applicable to Grace. It is not a buying into the idea of the divine sanctity of marriage, of the necessity for virginity, or of the wholeness of sexual purity, we are supposed to come away with, but a condemnation of the hypocrisy that arises in the circumstances of these beliefs.

So to hold Jud's vow of celibacy to such a high regard that it would instantly destroy his entire character and brand him a "bad priest" akin to a mental, emotional, physical, and sexual abuser like Wicks is ... A misunderstanding of the movies themes and a misrepresentation of Jud, as a person, but not only that, it's a face-value acceptance of exactly what the movie's critiquing. It may feel like a whole examination of the religious ideas of purity to reference the actual meaning behind a vow of celibacy and take one step back in being merciful to the thought of fornication whilst still condemning the actual act, but this is just a more thorough defense, or explanation, of the idea, not an examination of why or how this idea has already impacted the way we view sex in society. So many of us are raised culturally religious, whether intentionally or not, simply because Christianity has wormed its way into the corners of so many societies through years, and years, and years of colonization, proselytization, and the normalization of religious morality laws, that often times we accept religious thoughts without examining why we believe what we do. That said, this movies own idea of these "sexual immoralities" as non-condemnable offenses is present to draw from, but I think it's still important to form our own ideas of what sex is and why we separate it from other forms of intimacy so strongly. Each of the three examples for why a vow of celibacy is so important (i.e. unsplit loyalty, egoless service, and monetary selflessness) can be applied to a sexual relationship, but can not only be applied to a sexual relationship. This is because the actual issues themselves are not inherently sexual. Denouncing a priest for splitting his loyalties and prioritizing personal connections, egoist interests, and/or monetary goods above the well being of his flock is the actual focal point, the real "sin", whereas saying a priest inherently does any/all of these things by having a sexual relationship/interaction requires us to buy into the religious view of sexual intimacy as explicitly othered from the various forms of intimacy that have been less villainized by religion throughout the years. It's a pattern of circular reasoning that holds to the belief that sexual intimacy is somehow more carnal and debased than platonic or romantic intimacy, which is both seen to be made true by and founded on the belief that non-sanctified sexual intimacy (i.e. unchanged from it's nature) is something that inherently "strays" from the path of purity. But is it actually? In the context of WUDM: No. Jud's ability to have a sexual relationship/interaction would not contradict his calling as a priest, as the morality laws around purity culture and sex itself are inherently questioned at every step, and a judgement on him would depend on whether or not he actually failed in his priestly duties of caring for his flock due to this possible intimacy, not through it. In the context of the general idea of the thing: Also, no. The exclusion of sex from other forms of intimacy seen as something vital to all humans (like cultural, societal, communal, platonic, or even romantic intimacy) is a culturally religious societal idea, the view of it as something dirty, or animalistic, or "impure" is an, again, culturally religious societal idea, but there is no inherent impurity or moral failing in it outside of these specific beliefs. I imagine we wouldn't declare Jud a "bad priest" for having an intimately platonic relationship with someone, but are expected to do so instantaneously if it becomes sexual in any physical nature ... The question is why? What about the sexual intimacy inherently destroys his purity? His purpose? His ability to perform his role as priest? Or does it at all? I imagine this man, who struggles very little with any of the above mentioned core values delineated by his vow of celibacy, would instantly turn to spiritual ruin in any/all of those aspects because his touch ventured a little too far in a direction considered more-than-platonic ...

So then, it's apparent that the difference between Jud possibly making a personal decision that's still based in his own moral beliefs and having a consensual sexual relationship/interaction with someone, despite the church being against this and him having made a vow, and Wicks, or other similarly aligned bishops/priests, using their high standing in the church and institutional power to oppress those around them and face no consequences for their actions, despite not upholding any aspect of the actual religion or its meaning, is ... Very clear. It's not the idea of "picking and choosing" which of the Catholic institution's laws they follow that's the problem, as the Catholic institution is fundamentally flawed, but rather the "picking and choosing" between their own fallibility - usurping the image, and idea, and (at least the Catholic) physical face of God, to create their own system of abuse that leaves them without reproach for their innate hypocrisy of the thing.

Jud does not have to contradict himself or his beliefs in any way to have a sexual relationship/interaction, he does not have to separate himself from his flock, he does not have to raise himself to a higher standing or an infallible level, because he does not hold sexuality over anyone else's head. He does not judge Grace for having sex out of wedlock, he does not judge the single mother who attends the church, he does not judge Nat's wife for divorcing him (despite the fact her getting into any other relationship would be seen as adultery in the general Catholic view), he does not judge the subject of homosexuality when Benoit brings it up by trying to change his mind or even offer an aspect of disapproval despite Benoit's clear acceptance of it, and therefore could plausibly have sexual relations himself without being a hypocrite or denying his call to the church and priesthood through service. This is because while his identity is dependent on his own beliefs, his level of servitude is as well. Just like he could have still been a "good priest" if he'd faltered from his vow of servitude to his bishop during the nine months of verbal sexual harassment he endured, he could still be a "good priest" if he faltered from his vow of servitude to his church through holding his views of anti-sexism and anti-homophobia, which means he could also plausibly believe in and push for fem/nonbinary priests (as he is shown to be disturbed by transphobia, which implies he has a more broken down view of strict binary gender) or officiate homosexual marriages (as, stated above, he is shown to be nonjudgmental about sexual "immoralities", including homosexuality), both of which are rejected by Catholicism at large, without being seen as a "bad priest", or a hypocrite, or someone who's simply "picking and choosing" which of the Catholic doctrines to partake in, as he is allowed his own beliefs even while living beneath the overarching banner of being a Catholic priest. Jud's own identity and belief system is not, or at least should not be, subject to total destruction simply because he's accepted a life of servitude, or because he's made a vow, just like none of these women's lives should have been subject to destruction simply because their sacrificial servitude was expected of them and they accepted it as what they were called/required to do. There is nuance to this, to sacrifice, to servitude, to what it means to be a "good priest", or even a "good Christian", and where Jud, with his nuanced view, says "you can always be honest by not saying the unhonest part", Wicks simply lies. There is no nuance in his views, no actual belief system that contradicts the church where he feels it falls short, he simply contradicts himself and his professed beliefs, separates himself from his flock, and views himself as someone above the standard he himself partakes in setting, as someone infallible to church doctrine and his own teachings, in order to do what he likes while simultaneously holding the church's views over everyone else's heads. There is no outward disagreement with the church, there is just hidden hypocrisy. There is no care for those also outside of the doctrine, there is just vitriolic hatred hiding his own sins. Wicks picks and chooses in the literal sense, he picks when something applies to him and when it only applies to everyone else, but this is not an actual belief system, it's just a personal contradiction. Jud has a belief system and it is applied to everyone around him equally, the fact it contradicts with the Catholic doctrine he's under does not make it any less valid because it does not contradict with itself. He does not have to lie, he does not have to twist his values, he does not have to loosen the binds of it around himself for personal gain, because the beliefs he holds in his heart are the same as the soft words he guides his flock with, not ties them down to. It is a different set of beliefs than the ones we expect him, as a Catholic priest, to have but they are still his beliefs and he does not abuse them.

That said, Jud is the antithesis to Wicks not because of his immaculate ability to prostrate himself upon the chapel floors with big pleading eyes begging for forgiveness for his sins, and guidance in his thoughts and actions, but because of his ability to live his life as close to the second coming of Christ as he can without having to change who he is - despite all of his flaws. There is an innate saintly quality to him, a soft sacrificial nature, and though his view of the church is one of storytelling and half-truths, his own conviction in the meaning of it is real and it will light up the room when he talks about it because there are no false pretensions to who he is, or what he believes. The light is in him. It's part of him. His faith is not founded in the Catholic church, it is founded in the very essence of what it means to truly care about others, and when those things contradict he chooses to care instead of follow church doctrine. Wicks, on the other hand, spent his entire life in a facade, a mask, a cut-short and played off by the Phantom of the Opera overture piece of performance devoid of anything close to truth, either religious or personal. His faith was based only in his ability to twist it into power, to perform an air of holiness just enough to turn an already flawed system into his own weapon of control and self aggrandization, while refusing to change anything about himself to embody it. He was unsacrificial to his core, not only in the traditional sense, but in the personal sense as well, refusing to give up any of his vices or wicked desires while using church doctrine to stamp out the need to care for anyone at all exactly because it would limit his own perceived power. He was not a flawed bishop, or even a flawed man, he was an abuser with a religious backing.

"Do these stories convince us of a lie? Or do they resonate with something deep inside us that's profoundly true? That we can't express any other way, except storytelling?" Jud believes in the truth at the core of his religion's teachings, the love, the care, the light, despite the fact he knows so much of the systemic aspect of it has become nothing more than an attraction, whereas Wicks believes in nothing but the power of the performance. Wicks is the definition of what the church has come to be, an oppressor, an abuser, an impure and unattainable idea of holiness that prioritizes servitude to it above all else even at the expense of one's own identity and, often times, safety, and hinges its power on the hatred, demonization, fear-mongering, and otherization of anyone who falls outside the line. Lying is in its nature. Convincing the world of its lies is the ultimate goal. Jud, however, embodies Jesus much more than he does the church. Not only in the thematic parallels of his constant sacrificial nature and willingness to take on other's sins in an attempt to purify the little secluded world that hated him since he arrived, but in the often ignored aspects of Jesus' contradictions with original church doctrine, and His true sacrificial nature.

The first comparison is in the way the modern ideas of Catholicism, and Christianity in general, often ignore the fact that in the text Jesus was crucified precisely because he contradicted everything these systems then upheld, and still now uphold: the hatred, the ignorance, the systemic abuses and bigotry, the unsympathetic laws ... Jud exists within the Catholic church and its system like Jesus textually existed within the religion of His time, and Jud's questioning of the system, and its orders, and its ideas of submission, and sacrifice, and servitude are exactly what make him Christ-like, just as his sacrificial nature does. It is all nuance. He is both a born fighter and a self-sacrificial savior, and he positions himself against the system's abuses not through hatred, but through love. He endures his own abuse, says he can handle it, but he can not ignore the manipulation of those around him and the way the church takes advantage of them, so he fights it. He fights it because he has the ability to question everything he's been taught, everything he's been held to by the rigorous system under penalty of losing his one perceived purpose in life, everything he's sworn that life to under oath to God, and even that which is attributed to that God on a grand scale, when it feels wrong. That is the closest thing to Christ any of us have ... Love that knows no limits, no submission, no fear. Love that can change the very foundations of what the word even means. It is a vital aspect of Jud's character that he is able to see through the church's lies, that he can acknowledge the church itself as a play-pretend version of a historic set-piece, that he can call out his bishop on his transactional behavior under the guise of miracle working, that he can ignore years, and years, and years of enmeshed hatred towards a woman that exemplifies "whoredom" to this little town and instead see her as a victim of unjust persecution, because he truly cares, and he truly believes in the meaning at the center of it. His questioning is not a flaw, or a doubt, or an attempt to parse through what he wants to apply, it's exactly how we see just how much he truly believes ... It does not matter that the church really is just a fancy replica, because it only has to house those who need guidance and prayer. His opposition to "selling" miracles is not because it's a lie, but because he truly does believe in them and the evil of monetizing that faith. His mercy towards Grace is not because he does not care about the religious doctrine and its laws, but because he cares enough to know that they're failing in their purpose by being used for hate. Jud needs to question, and differ, and fight because the church needs to be challenged. This is, again, where we find him in direct opposition to Wicks, his true antithesis, because while Wicks has not changed to meet even the flawed systems ideas of purity and instead used it to further his own prejudices, it is the system itself that still needs to change to meet Jud's genuine embodiment of true Christ-like Catholicism.

The second comparison is in the way, like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jud does get down on his knees to pray, and pray, and pray for salvation from his looming fate as ultimate sacrifice, and this is where we see that traditional idea of sacrifice - we see it now because he bleeds - but this is not the foundational parallel. This is only the most well known, this is what most remember from the story of Jesus, the way He goes to the cross with bleeding acceptance despite the way He's begged to be freed of it, but this is just the culmination. The most prevalent parallel to Christ we see in Jud is in the innate sacrificial nature he embodies, the devotion to his flock even when detrimental to him, the selfless openness even when humiliating, the disregard for worldly possessions and temptations, that come as easy to him as breathing. That is who he is. The innate sacrifice of Jesus transforming into man, a being so far beneath His Godhood, to come down to earth for our salvation is often ignored in the textual readings in sight of His ultimate sacrifice on the cross, because it is one He does easily, one He wants to do. The focus of praise is predominately on His blood, sweat, and tears in the garden and on the cross while the idea of the amount of pure love it would take for a God to become man, but not only man, perfect man in a world of temptation is often ignored. The only times most seem to remember this though is when it is painful, when He cries out in the garden, when He starves in the desert, when He begs on the cross ... But it is in all the little moments, all the days, weeks, months, years that He would've spent sinless that the essence of His true sacrificial nature is found, the moments where He did it without thinking. Jud's bigger sacrifices, the ones that take blood, sweat, and tears, the ones he goes to with pain weighing heavy in his pleading eyes, are what we're used to praising, venerating even, but it is his innate, natural, willing state of loving sacrifice that is the foundation of who he is, what he does, and why he comes into this little church town as the antithesis of everything they've ever known. It is because he is so alike to Jesus that most of his sacrifices go unnoticed, just like so many people ignore the idea of Jesus' perfect nature as man because they view it as something He did easily, something He was built for due to the view that he was still both God and man simultaneously, but it is also why he has such an impact on the town. His religion is about love, real love, love that persists within him and radiates without him, love that refuses to be corrupted by temptation or hatred, love that cannot be coerced into judgement through doctrine and systems, as was Jesus', and he lives it, despite both the personal and religious doubts in his mind, because he believes in the core values at the heart of it, and it is in his very nature to embody that love. He is the antithesis to Wicks because his values, his morals, his beliefs, his love exists outside of being told what to do or what to believe. They are founded in him.

All in all, Jud is fundamentally a good priest exactly because his sacrificial nature is innate, it's a desire in him, it's a building block of his entire world despite, or rather because of, the fact he disagrees with the church on a lot of things. He does not have to follow every Catholic rule, he does not have to make every perceived "mandatory sacrifice", he does not have to put on the sackcloth and ashes to push himself to sacrifice his sinful nature because his nature is already sacrificial in the truest sense: In the sense that he gives it easy. He is what the church should be, he is what his flock needed, and he is capable of love, in every form, precisely because he's made of it - not as punishment, or hardship, or bruised-knee sacrifice on the cold marble of the church floor, but as the sacred heart of his entire life. It's finally not a veneration of the brought-up-sacrificial lamb, of the head-down little curly-coated innocent, of the soft-hearted creature who's skin gives beneath the blade like it was born to be bled out, of the poor little thing that doesn't even fight when its throat is slit ... It's a veneration of the scrappy little street dog who's lived off the bite but still licks the wounds of its fellow outcasts, who only knows the strike of a hand but who still nuzzles its soft warm head up into the tremble of a cold palm, who has lived without love since it was born but who keeps trying over and over and over again to give it from the endless supply deep in its chest despite it all, and who guards the little scattered flock that's barely even its own with its very life, not because it was trained to obey, or forced to fight, or born to die, but because it refuses to let anyone else have been either.