Gibson film ignites passion, irony

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

[Yardstick]

Yes, I guess Catholics are more likely to meditate on the Crucifixion and to hold it in more of a mystical reverence. But Protestants place more emphasis on evangelism, and I would have guessed that that would have inspired them to take the Crucifixion to the people in the mass-media form of a Hollywood movie long ago.

Is the Mass as Calvary reenactment a traditional Catholic thing, or is it more of Gibson's own twist?

[ultima ratio]

It is traditionally Catholic--defined by the Council of Trent. But don't forget, Gibson is a real artist. He made Braveheart and won an oscar for his direction. He has a feel for the historical context of an event and also for Renaissance art. He wanted the film to have the feel of a Carravagio painting--dark and mystical, yet realistic. I also believe he was genuinely interested in inspiring all Christians to stronger faith. From the reviews by Christians of all denominations he has succeeded.

[american colleen]

How can Mel Gibson be affilited with a group whose leader espouses this:

"There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel.... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism."

Weird.

[VermiciousKnid]

UR,

I don't know if Mr. Gibson has or has not consulted with Vatican scholars (though every report I have read has said he has), but I do know that several years ago I saw a picture in People magazine (dentist's office) that showed Mel Gibson and his twin sons standing with JPII in the Vatican.

Apparently the Holy Father heard they were in Rome and requested a meeting with him. The article reported that the pope asked Mr. Gibson to be more responsible in his movie-making -- specifically to cut down on the GRATUITOUS violence.

I distinctly remember the article for 2 reasons: 1) While I knew Mel Gibson was a Catholic, I had no idea at the time about his traditionalist leanings and was surprised and happy to hear it, and 2) it was the first (and only) time I'd ever seen a picture of any of his children.

Regards,

[ultima ratio]

PetersNet cites the Vatican. It could be he was tied up and couldn't make it. But I know for a fact he is not fond of Vatican policies--and has said so openly. He is a traditionalist through and through.

As for being interviewed on EWTN--Gibson is a movie star. He sometimes gets a friendly pass that other traditionalists would not get--though the Novus Ordo bishops were at the bottom of this current controversy about anti-Semitism, caring as usual more for political correctness than propagating the faith.

Sure he was interviewed by Arroyo--so what? Why should his being a traditionalist preclude his relations with other Catholics? I don't get your implication. How does this change anything? I've been telling you for months that SSPX is not schismatic, neither are those who attend their Masses. Gibson is a solid Catholic--probably more so than most of the bureaucrats at the Vatican.

[ultima ratio]

I was referring to a question as to whether Gibson consulted with the Vatican over The Passion. He apparently did not, according to Vatican sources. It is interesting that the Pope asked to meet with him, not the other way around. Gibson has spoken openly against the modernist trends in the Vatican and has done so often.

[saradippity]

I place,oh,so-much,credibility in "Vatican sources".

Who and/or what is ITV?

[Yardstick]

Well, I'm looking forward to this film, and to me, the darker and more mystical the better. I'm not sure if a Protestant rendering of the Crucifixion would have had the solemn, mystical gravity of something a Catholic may have done. It probably would have ended up feeling like that protrait we always see of Jesus -- the one with him as a long-haired and American looking. Or maybe the Left Behind series. It sounds like Gibson has chosen to render the Crucifixion in crimson and black, and I think that's good.

[ultima ratio]

A stupid remark by one bishop--a kook. How does that tarnish all traditional Catholics? Give me a break. How can he represent traditionalism any more than Mahony or Weakland represent all Novus Ordo Catholics? Williamson is a loose cannon and has done a lot of harm to SSPX--which may be why he has been transferred to Argentina. Nor is he the head of the Society--Bishop Fellay is, a devout man of judicious temperament. Rome itself distinguishes between Williamson and the other SSPX bishops and will only negotiate with the latter. I have never myself liked Williamson's views--I consider them radical.

[ultima ratio]

This is true, which is why this film is such a break-through event. It will transform popular perceptions--and bring everybody, Christians included, to deeper insight.

[ultima ratio]

Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic. You have to tally that with the mess created by the Novus Ordo Church to figure out who's got the right message here. It was the Novus Ordo bishops who wanted to stop this film, remember. They gave a stolen script to a liberal claque they knew would hate it, then were forced to draw back when Gibson threatened to sue.

[american colleen]

But I know for a fact he is not fond of Vatican policies--and has said so openly. He is a traditionalist through and through.

Sounds like me!

? I've been telling you for months that SSPX is not schismatic, neither are those who attend their Masses.

On July 2, 1988, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, His Holiness Pope John Paul II stated that: "Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law", and that "formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

Gibson is a solid Catholic--probably more so than most of the bureaucrats at the Vatican.

Beyond my pay grade to speculate.

Why should his [Gibson] being a traditionalist preclude his relations with other Catholics? I don't get your implication.

I'm a traditionalist, too. It certainly doesn't preclude relations with other Catholics or even Protestants. My point (not implication) was that Gibson sounds like every other traditionalist I know... not the members of the SSPX.

though the Novus Ordo bishops were at the bottom of this current controversy about anti-Semitism, caring as usual more for political correctness than propagating the faith.

Really? Did you read what Cardinal George had to say on this matter? But I agree that the USCCB is a bloated bureaucracy and should be dismantled and buried real deep. It's a place for secular and religious to hide out so they don't have to have real jobs, IMO. But, we are to let the wheat grow with the chafe and I suppose that is why the USCCB is a connundrum.

[american colleen]

Hi! :-)

[GatekeeperBookman]

I would suggest the promotion of Gibson as savior of Catholicism.

Seriously, this film is potentially very important & he could assist in the beginnings of a public discourse. The Church, cleansed & reformed, could be very important for our future-when we move away from the dead Materialist culture to a new spiritual view.

Homosexuals out, straights in. Lib's out, Conservatives in. The Episcopal church just pronounced its own death. Orthodox Judaism could also become big, very big.

Just the ravings of a nut case. Pay no attention.

[ultima ratio]

But he never signed the order of excommunication and his letter was in direct disagreement with his own canon law. I've been through this a million times. Canon Law specifically provides for disobedience in a state of necessity. It also disallows any penalty for anyone who lacks malice. Archbishop Lefebver, in the opinion of a great many learned scholars, was correct in his assessment that the Church was in crisis--a state of necessity. Moreover, they concur that even if it wasn't, as long as he acted under that presumption, he would not have incurred the penalty. This was an automatic "excommunication"--latae sententiae--not something imposed by a tribunal, and therefore very common and suspect, dependent upon the disposition of the subject. So unless the Pontiff knew what was in Archbishop Lefebvre's heart, the Archbishop was never excommunicated.

You should also remember that disobedience per se is not an excommunicatable offense. Neither is it intrinsically evil. Only disobedience to a LAWFUL command would be wrong. But the order not to consecrate bishops was given in order to destroy the traditional Mass and to prevent any traditional priests from being ordained in the Catholic Church. This was tantamount to destroying Catholic Tradition and was properly refused. It was the Archbishop who understood the dire situation of the Church in 1988, not the Pope. And the Pope has shown himself to have been wrong time and again about these matters. He is still waiting for his springtime.

Yes, I've read Cardinal George's grudging words. He could do no less. He and his confreres are opposed to everything Gibson stands for--and they are working overtime behind the scenes to see that he does not succeed.

[ultima ratio]

"My point (not implication) was that Gibson sounds like every other traditionalist I know... not the members of the SSPX"

I'm a traditionalist. I have many friends who are not. I attend SSPX Masses. Even Rome admits this is permitted. Your distinction is ridiculous.

[american colleen]

Thanks but sorta sounds like a defense of Martin Luther.

[american colleen]

Your distinction is ridiculous.

Of course!

[american colleen]

I would suggest the promotion of Gibson as savior of Catholicism.

Gibson directing Jesus. ;-)

[american colleen]

He and his confreres are opposed to everything Gibson stands for--and they are working overtime behind the scenes to see that he does not succeed.

Do you have the proof to back up this statement?