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.

[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?