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.

[LibKill]

The only conceivable problem is a lack of subtitles.

My latin is minimal, my amaraic non-existant.

So, I guess I'll wait for the DVD, most good ones have a subtitle option.

[american colleen]

Relevent parts of the Msgr. Perl letter regarding your statement "I attend SSPX Masses. Even Rome admits this is permitted." I know, I know, you and I have seen this a million times, but I post it for the lurkers.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. 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. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that

the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

[Countyline]

why not now

I read he felt inspired to do it. A "passion", if you will.

I look forward to seeing it. Some objectors sound very like the book burners of the past. If he wants to make this movie about, Christ, more power to him

[ultima ratio]

Really? What canon law did Luther appeal to? Does canon law mean anything to you--or to the smear-maestroes who keep claiming the SSPX is schismatic? If the law provides exceptions and it applies--then it's the Pope's problem to admit this and come to some resolution. He should know by know there will be no springtime, that Archbishop Lefebvre was 100% correct. The Pope was in error about the state of the Church in '88 and before--and now. What's more, Rome knows it.

So it will have to come to terms with the truth for a change. A traditional Catholic--somebody who despises the Vatican's own Conciliar policies--has made a film which will soon shake up all of Christendom and re-affirm the meaning of Christ's sacrifice. Rome should ask itself why this has come out of Catholic traditionalism and not from the new Church. It should also think about all the millions paid out for hush money to victims instead of bankrolling other similar projects designed to save souls. Just a thought.

[saradippity]

Hi,yourself from an another traditionalist.Glad you're back!!

[ultima ratio]

He is the Supreme Legislator indeed. That is why careless statements in Motu Proprio letters are damaging to his credibility. As Legislator, his laws are expounded in his own Canon Law--which provides explicitly for disobedience in a state of necessity. It also states no penalty is incurred for any act which is not done out of malice.

So the Pontiff's letter is in disagreement with his own Canon Law. This is why he himself has sought for some rapprochement with SSPX. He knows he is wrong--and admits as much indirectly. Msgr. Perl has already stated Catholics are permitted to attend SSPX Masses. And the SSPX has never been placed on the official list of those Christian communities OUTSIDE the Church. When a bishop tried to do this, he was told the SSPX was an internal Church matter. This is also why, when the Bishop of Honolulu tried to excommunicate Catholics for attending SSPX events, his excommunication decree was declared invalid by Rome. The SSPX is NOT, and never has been, schismatic.

As for undermining the faith--don't make me laugh. It is the Novus Ordo which does this--and the Vatican itself. Nothing could have undermined the faith more than the scandalous and heretical behavior of bishops appointed by this Pontiff, nor more than the radical behavior of this Pontiff himself at Assisi I and II, as well as at other venues. It is traditional Catholics--like Gibson--who have sustained the faith, not the Novus Ordo--and we have to deal with the kind of misperceptions and disinformation disseminated by people like yourself who believe whatever nonsense is spewed out of Novus Ordo circles.

[jla]

RE: Society of St. Pius X

Thank you. I'll do a search to find out more.

[clockwise]

I am confused. I see two men who look like they play Jesus. (One Jesus, two Jesi?)

[P-Marlowe]

I saw a clip of it last night at the Harvest Crusade. It will not necessarily mean the salvation of the Catholic Church. I don't think that is Gibson's hope inasmuch as he allowed an evangelical protestant revival organization to be the first organization to publicly show a clip of the film.

It is going to be a very powerful film. The segment I saw overwhelmed me and brought tears to my eyes. I was awestruck.

Gibson is right. You can't do this in English and subtitles would ruin it. Just memorize the last few chapters of Luke before you see it.

[P-Marlowe]

Ping to #69

[GatekeeperBookman]

Tne film is not the means of any thing but the BEGINNING of a conversation. A spark A point at which valid ( moral & theologically correct views ) may be exchanged. We see a wasteland-the Church is ground zero for what has been a holocost. The society at large requires such a conversation to begin to re-assemble itself, some semblance of a Church, &etc. Mr Gibson merely provides the option, for some who may or may not choose, to begin talking. The Pope has grown sadly old & weak. The Cardinals have avoided all responsibility. Schism is the rule of the day for Catholicism-they are too many to follow or understand. The Bishops in Europe & America should have already resigned. The Episcopal Church is now finished-until it admits the faults & reforms in toto. We need some cathartic spark to gain our attention. I only pray the film might provide it.

[GatekeeperBookman]

See the notes above about the Schisms-I have given up on even understanding what ball team is in what league. WOW, what a game!

[GatekeeperBookman]

Don't you see how the man is reaching out virtually everywhere he can-there is an actor worth his pay. I am not in the least surprised at your seeing the film at your venue-fabulous & I await the release with great expectations ( can I say that without sending a small royalty to Mr. Dickens estate? ).

[american colleen]

...and we have to deal with the kind of misperceptions and disinformation disseminated by people like yourself who believe whatever nonsense is spewed out of Novus Ordo circles.

You mean I am wrong and I should quit my job as Eucharistic Minister, Altar woman, Liturgical dancer (in tights) and official neighbor door greeter? Can't I hold hands with my brothers and sisters during the Our Father? How could I be wrong on centering prayer and enneagrams? I don't know where I'd be without my crystals and I couldn't attend a Mass that didn't include "On Eagles Wings."

I'm not parting with these, I don't care what you say.

[ultima ratio]

Good. It's a start.

[P-Marlowe]

(One Jesus, two Jesi?)

Perhaps one Geez, Two Geezes.

[Alouette]

Why can't a movie be controversial and still be an excellent film? "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will" are considered cinematic masterpieces, even though they exalt despicable philosophies. I'm sure that Mel's movie will be much superior to these.

As for the ADL's fear that mobs of fanatics are going to swarm out of the cineplexes after viewing this film and beat up the first Jew they find, well, that's a hallucination that ain't gonna happen. At the very worst, some mouth-breathing numbskulls might slap around some Amish guy (the same way some idiot thugs murdered a Sikh after 9-11 imagining that he was a Muslim)