Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Posted on 01/21/2004 9:03:36 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:06:22 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On the matter of the pope, "The Passion" and the famous papal quote, you are perhaps perplexed. You are not alone. This is a story marked by, among other things, a certain amount of intrigue, and some of it is like something out of "The DaVinci Code."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
One, the pope said it, meant it about the film as conveying an authentic sense of the events as he, the pope, had always imagined them. The original impression conveyed by the journalist reports was entirely accurate. However, controversy ensued, and the handlers at the Vatican now think they were rash in going so far out on a limb (honestly). They are trying to half retract the statement, and to take the blame for that half-retraction themselves - or even (dishonestly) to put it on the journalists. Anywhere but on the pope.
Two, the pope said the words, but they had a different meaning. They were a commentary on present times, that the world has not changed. The leading "it" means the world, now. The PR types as the Vatican misunderstood the comment, took it in the previous sense (see one above), and led the reporters to believe that one (above) was true. Having made this mistake, and having been corrected internally over it, they are now attempting to retract the implication, but not the quote. Thus the weaseling you noticed, that they deny a judgment of the film, but not the statement itself.
Three, the pope did not say the words. The PR types made them up as something the pope might say, that they thought sounded right or non-commital or deep or whatever. They meant to endorse the film, knowing that was a kind of political action. They thought it would be a sort of fait accompli, they say the pope said it, nobody denies that, it passes for fact. The pope or others with his ear get wind of this, and he denies the statement. The PR types are then left scrambling to get the statement retracted, without admitting they flat made it up.
I personally think that "one" is the most likely explanation. But I can't rule out "two". I consider "three" unlikely, but the PR types are not looking very good here so it might be naive of me to think they wouldn't try such a thing in the first place (my main reason for doubting "three"). I think the PR types want us to think "two" is right, at the moment. But that may be because "one" is right, and they are trying to avoid the controversy of an endorsement, and "two" is just a cover story.
That is my analysis of it. Incidentally, another reason I think it is one or two is that the comment sounds like the pope. It is the sort of thing he'd say. Of course, his handlers presumably know that, know what he sounds like, so this doesn't really rule out "three" completely. But I think it highly likely he did say the words, and that is why the PR types initially encouraged the reporters to report them.
So with conflicting public impulses, the lower level Vatican officials first confirm the quote, and then backpedal from their confirmation of it. In short, the staff of the Vatican, quelle surprise, occasionally acts like the staff of a President or Member of Congress.
End of story.
Congressman Billybob
I think that you need to read Paul Harvey's the rest of the story....
Years ago a hardworking man took his family from New York State to Australia to take advantage of a work opportunity there. Part of this man's family was a handsome young son who had aspirations of joining the circus as a trapeze artist or an actor.
This young fellow, biding his time until a circus job or even one as a stagehand came along, worked at the local shipyards which bordered on the worse section of town. Walking home from work one evening this young man was attacked by five thugs who wanted to rob him.
Instead of just giving up his money the young fellow resisted. However they bested him easily and proceeded to beat him to a pulp. They mashed his face with their boots, and kicked and beat his body brutally with clubs, leaving him for dead. When the police happened to find him lying in the road, they assumed he was dead and called for the Morgue Wagon.
On the way to the morgue a policeman heard him gasp for air, and they immediately took him to the emergency unit at the hospital. When he was placed on a gurney, a nurse remarked to her horror that his young man no longer had a face. Each eye socket was smashed, his skull, legs, and arms fractured, his nose literally hanging from his face, all is teeth were gone, and his jaw was almost completely torn from his skull
Although his life was spared, he spent over a year in the hospital. When he finally left, his body may have healed but his face was disgusting to look at. He was no longer the handsome youth that everyone admired.
When the young man started to look for work again he was turned down by everyone just on account of the way he looked. One potential employer suggested to him that he join the freak show at the circus as The Man Who Had No Face. And he did this for a while. He was still rejected by everyone and no one wanted to be seen in his company. He had thoughts of suicide
This went on for five years. One day he passed a church and sought some solace there. Entering the church he encountered a priest who had seen him sobbing while kneeling in a pew. The priest took pity on him and took him to the rectory where they talked at length. The priest was impressed with him to such a degree that he said that he would do everything possible for him that could be done to restore his dignity and life, if the young man would promise to be the best Catholic he could be, and trust in God's mercy to free him from his torturous life. The young man went to Mass and communion every day, and after thanking God for saving his life, asked God to only give him peace of mind and the grace to be the best man he could ever be in His eyes.
The priest, through his personal contacts was able to secure the services of the best plastic surgeon in Australia. There would be no cost to the young man, as the doctor was the priest's best friend. The doctor too was so impressed by the young man, whose outlook now on life, even though he had experienced the worst, was filled with good humor. The surgery was a miraculous success. All the best dental work was also done for him. The young man became everything he promised God he would be. He was also blessed with a wonderful, beautiful wife, and many children, and success in an industry which would have been the furthest thing from his mind as a career if not for the goodness of God and the love of the people who cared for him. This he acknowledges publicly.
The young man was and is Mel Gibson.
His life was the inspiration for his production of the movie "The Man Without A Face." He is to be admired by all of us as a God fearing man, a political conservative, and an example to all as a true man of courage. And to think I admired him before I knew any of this! He is quite a man!
Paul Harvey
I will be at the movie on the 1st day and I encourage everyone to do the same
They might be peeved that Gibson is not a "real" (post Vatican II) Catholic and this is their way of getting back at him.
This movie just might start a spiritual revolution.
No, this is the right thread for that. And I said what I said: Peggy Noonan is a natural wonder. there will be no retractions or intrigues.
Mel Gibson Man Without a Face Hoax
Anytime you hear an amazing story attributed to Paul Harvey, you have to double-check. Harvey is used by more hoaxers than any other public figure.
Graham went Hindu?
Sympathy for The Devil -- I watched with glee... While your kings and queens... Fought for ten decades... For the gods they made... I shouted out,... Who killed the kennedys?... When after all... It was you and me.
I'm not a Catholic either, but I have heard that the church stood for good and most truth. Well, how about some backbone.
Did the Pope say those words or didn't he? It's simple enough.
Was that wrong of the producer to be eager?
Because Abe Foxman is beating on them about it.
So it's Abe "You Can't Say That!" Foxman versus Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I don't know why the princes of the Church are worried....what, is Foxman going to call their bosses and get their jobs?
Four thumbs out of six is pretty good, isn't it?
So I watched, and found myself moved and inspired by the film, which isn't about hatred but love, and love's continuing war with evil. It is a film that engenders awe, gratitude, and no small amount of self-examination
I'll ditto Peggy's observations! Stating what's true for me, the movie isn't against Jews or Judaism whatsoever. It does a pretty darned good job of portraying humans and all their weaknesses, faults, insecurities and it also depicts evil itself. But no connect is made between Jews and evil. A viewer will have to CHOOSE to make that connection. And the film has so much more to offer -- to everybody who views it.
It really doesn't matter to me about the Pope story. I suppose he ought to try to clear things up, but I think Vatican PR has decided to do some damage control and we'll hear little about it from here on. After all, Pontius Pilate made his decisions based on politics too.....
Prairie
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Have they stopped beating their wives too?
Here's what this is all about. The pope offered his personal opinion regarding the movie. He doesn't want his opinion to be taken as an official teaching.
Navarro-Valls should have kept his mouth shut. Rod Dreher has a column today (I will post shortly) that all but accuses the Vatican of lying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.