Gibson film ignites passion, irony

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030808.shtml ^ | 8-8-03 | Jonah Goldberg

[SJackson]

This has got to be one of the strangest controversies in a long time. A movie that won't be released for months is being denounced by people who haven't seen it. Why? Because they claim the film assigns blame for a crime to a handful of people who have been dead for 2,000 years.

Now, to be sure, the crime in question is a big one: deicide, the killing of God. And the handful of people are a pretty controversial bunch: "The Jews" - scourge of history to some, heroes of history to others, ethnicity of accountants, borscht-belt comics and deli sandwich makers to most.

Nevertheless, I still find the controversy over Mel Gibson's yet-to-be-released film, "The Passion," too rich in irony to take at face value.

First, here's the back story. Mel Gibson is a big movie star, as if you need to be told. He's also a very Catholic guy. In fact, he has ties to a quasi-heretical movement within the Catholic Church that rejects Vatican II and the popes who've run the church since then.

Gibson claims he's attempting to re-create the events of Jesus' final hours before the crucifixion in as authentic a manner as possible. This is an audacious task for a filmmaker for a whole bunch of reasons. According to scholars, the biblical record on the exact details is a bit muddled with different apostles telling slightly different versions of the same event.

But the technical and artistic stuff doesn't get to the heart of why the film is so audacious. The real challenges are religious. Understandably, it's a touchy subject.

The story of the crucifixion is the central religious narrative for over a billion Christians of different denominations and cultures. And, alas, the role of "the Jews" in Jesus' death has been, at various times and places, the most reliable excuse for nearly 2,000 years of Jewish persecution.

In short, getting this movie wrong is a bigger deal than messing up the "Star Wars" series with Jar Jar Binks.

Some scholars, many of them Catholic, who have seen a version of the script believe the film is irresponsible. It gets significant facts wrong - including the use of Latin at a time when Romans spoke Greek - and at the same time, they say, revives the idea that "the Jews" are "Christ killers." The Catholic Church officially exonerated the Jews of the crime in 1965.

Predictably, various Jewish leaders and other like-minded folk have raised their "concerns," too. Unfortunately, none of them has seen the movie, either.

Meanwhile, many people who have seen the film, including several friends and colleagues of mine, say it is a wonderful, albeit violently bloody, film. I'll take their word for it.

But, either way, I still have a problem with the controversy. First of all, what if it's true that some Jews were culpable in Jesus' crucifixion? It seems pretty obvious that some Jews were, in fact, in on it. And, it's equally obvious that some Jews weren't (Jesus, after all, was Jewish). That's why I insist on putting quotation marks around "the Jews," because such a collectivity only exists in the minds of those who cannot see Jews as individuals.

But even if "the Jews" of two millennia ago deserve a share of the blame, so what? If you think it's ludicrous for Americans today to pay reparations for slavery or to hold a German teenager personally responsible for the Holocaust, how much more absurd is it to hold Jews responsible for the actions of a few Jews 20 centuries ago?

How much more ludicrous is it for a religion that champions forgiveness and love to blame all Jews for the actions of a few of our great-great-great-great (fill in the rest of the greats yourself) grandfathers? I'm no expert on Christianity, but group punishment and hereditary guilt strike me as remarkably un-Christian (and un-American) concepts.

Of course, fear of hypocrisy didn't stop some Christians at different times and places from making the lives of Jews miserable. Some Christians persecuted Jews out of a misguided effort to save their souls. More often the persecution was based in a desire for vengeance or simply out of hatred. And that hatred endures. In fact, it will endure regardless of what this movie says.

Yes, "The Passion" will probably stir up anti-Semitic acts by those looking to get stirred up. The Christ-killing story has always been an excuse for anti-Semitism, not a cause of it. After all, while there were attacks against Jews, there were no pogroms to hunt down the descendents of Pontius Pilate and the other Romans who were not only guilty of deicide but also responsible for the centuries of persecution Jesus' followers suffered.

Even if there is zero anti-Semitism in Gibson's heart or in his movie, that won't change the fact that "The Passion" will probably stir up Jew-hatred among some folks who are so inclined. I don't see why that fact should keep Gibson from making his movie. And as to whether it is worth making the movie in the first place, well, we can't answer that question until we see the film.

[ultima ratio]

Mel Gibson attends many religious conferences, sponsored by Catholic and Protestant organizations. I know for a fact he and his family attend SSPX Masses and his daughter is entering a convent--I believe it is SSPX.

[ultima ratio]

By the way, he has built his own church in LA.

[jla]

What is SSPX?

[tet68]

It's too bad Mel didn't film this in a "Roshomon" style,
where it's seen from the view points of several of the
charactors, then folks would really have been confused.

If we think this is controversy, wait till he films the life of the prophet, now that would be exciting!

[wolficatZ]

Thanks for link...they are archived here in Realaudio;
listening to Caviezel interview now.

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892288&NewList=&T1=world~over

[american colleen]

By the way, he has built his own church in LA.

As would I if I had his money. No brainer.

There are quite a few Catholics who have attended SSPX Masses... as would I if there were one in Massachusetts. Can you point me to where you got the information that his daughter is joining an SSPX convent?

One thing about Mel Gibson and "The Passion" - he consulted with the Vatican on the project. I can't imagine an SSPXer or Sedevacantist doing that!

[DPB101]

Some scholars, many of them Catholic, who have seen a version of the script believe the film is irresponsible

Surely Jonah knows better than this. All the so-called "scholars" are extreme left wingers. Sister Mary Boys has made a career out of attacking her own church. The Catholic "scholars" have as much credibility as "Catholics for Choice."

[xm177e2]

The Christ-killing story has always been an excuse for anti-Semitism, not a cause of it.

Really? I have been in Christian churches all of my 34 years. I have never heard one person express any resentment toward Jewish people because the Jewish leaders orchestrated Christ's execution, let alone advocate any actual reprisal.

I think you might have understood Jonah's words. When he said "The Christ-killing story has always been an excuse for anti-Semitism," he didn't mean it is always an excuse for anti-Semitism, he means it was used at most as an excuse for anti-Semitism, it itself is not responsible for hate. He's saying you can't blame the Christian Bible for anti-Semitism; the fault lies with the people who deliberately twisted it for their hateful purposes.

[american colleen]

Mel Gibson attends many religious conferences, sponsored by Catholic and Protestant organizations.

Huh? He must subscribe in part to ecumenism. Can't be an SSPXer or a Sedevacandist, you wouldn't think.

[ultima ratio]

He's a public figure who encourages Christianity everywhere. He's also publicizing his new film and has been showing it around to various Christian groups. I think it's significant it took a traditional Catholic like Gibson to make a film like this. He's thought about it long and hard--he says for over ten years.

[ultima ratio]

I got the information from my daughter. She chats with other traditionalist friends about SSPX matters. I know Gibson attends SSPX Masses. But he's not always in one place--so he may attend other traditional Masses here and there which are not SSPX. He also serves as acolyte at times. He is certainly friendly to SSPX--and why wouldn't he be? He's a traditional Catholic who knows the train is off the track.

[ultima ratio]

The Society of St. Pius X. It is a Catholic order of priests and seminarians founded by Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre. Some believe the Society has been excommunicated and is schismatic. The Society denies this vehemently and argues it is being persecuted for its traditionalism. I agree.

[ultima ratio]

Gibson is on record as being strongly opposed to Vatican II and the Vatican policies which have followed! I believe he has publicly denied he has "consulted" with the Vatican as reported. I will check this out.

[ultima ratio]

"He must subscribe in part to ecumenism."

This is another example of a distorted conception about traditionalists. I myself attend SSPX Masses but have good relations with Protestant and Jewish friends. What traditionalists reject is EXAGGERATED ecumenism which is really indifferentism or syncretism.

[Yardstick]

I think it's significant it took a traditional Catholic like Gibson to make a film like this.

I'm not quite sure what the significance is, but it is interesting. I would have guessed a Protestant of some stripe would have made such a film first.

[ultima ratio]

PetersNet has a story on this. Here is what this article says:

"According to some Italian papers, Gibson has consulted with Vatican officials and theologians to hear advice on creating an authentic re-telling of the story, but a Vatican source told ITV that Gibson has, over the years, declined six invitations to meet with the Pope."

[RightOnline]

I usually like Mr. Goldberg's writings.........but find this vapid; downright stupid.

[ultima ratio]

No, meditation on the Crucifixion, especially while saying the Rosary, is a traditional Catholic thing. This is profoundly tied-in with Gibson's idea of the Mass as a reenactment of Calvary and returns the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist to the foreground. At the same time I understand he has been very faithful to the Gospels and is determined not to alienate any Protestants, whatever their specific religious outlook. This is why he has been consulting with various Christian groups around the country.

[DPB101]

Good article by Gene Edward Veith in World Magazine this week:

Every Christian must confess that "it was my sins"—not Jews or Romans as such—"that put Jesus on the cross." Indeed, this is exactly what Mr. Gibson has been saying in trying to address his critics, a confession that confirms his personal faith. When the mob shouted, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25), they did not realize it, but they were invoking the only hope anyone can have. The blood of Christ "on us" is our—and their—salvation . . .

The controversy over the Mel Gibson movie is a testimony to the failure of Christians to communicate effectively what they believe. Secularists, by and large, think Christianity is all about moralism, with good people going to heaven and bad people going to hell. They have no idea that Christianity is really all about grace, forgiveness, God becoming flesh, Christ giving His life and rising again for the salvation of sinners.

[american colleen]

..."declined six invitations to meet with the Pope"...

I find that especially hard to believe. Really.

You know that Mel had a priest on the set every day to say Mass in Latin. Attending Mass with him every day was Jim Caveziel who is a devout Catholic who is in union with the Magisterium and the pope.

I saw Mr. Gibson's interview with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN's "World Over Live" and he sounded like the Catholics I know who attend the Tridentine - they have a great reverence for and a love of the Latin Mass. Just like me in fact!

And also there was a Jesuit priest (!) who was on the set each day in order to help with translations. Maybe Mel takes the good and leaves the not so good.