Posted on 02/26/2004 10:06:37 AM PST by Pyro7480
Last week, I wrote a preamble column about Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. I said that I was extraordinarily optimistic. In fact, I have never before wanted to enjoy a movie so much.
But I was wrong. Oh, how wrong I was.
I love God and Jesus with all my heart, but for the life of me I cannot embrace this film.
Forgive me if I cause offence, but I have to be honest.
This is some pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic blood cult. It is populated with medieval-type caricatures, screaming out of context, laughing at suffering.
Everyone is gruesome and grotesque, apart from a handful of people such as the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene and the apostle John. Mary, by the way, is hardly off of the screen, when in fact she is seldom mentioned in the Gospel accounts.
Herod is some cross-dressing lunatic, the Pharisee leaders, some of the brightest men of the age, are all obscene brutes and the Roman soldiers and the mob resemble crazed gargoyles.
No, no, no! The point has been completely missed. Hate me if you like, but please listen. The point is this:
We would have crucified Him. We would crucify Him. You, me, us. We'd smile, be tolerant and loving, do the right thing as we see it, and crucify Him. Then go home to hug our children and talk about how bad the world had become.
Evil seduces and beguiles. It is frequently attractive. If it was as ugly as director Gibson has portrayed, Jesus would not have had to die in agony. And agony is what it was.
Modern Christians have tended to play down the blood and gore of the Messiah's death. But Gibson compensates to such an extreme that he gives us a virtual fetish.
Indeed, the scene where a Roman soldier plunges his spear into Christ's side is, I am sorry, almost like something out of Monty Python. The soldier and those around him shower in the water and blood that cascades out of Yeshua's body.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Gibson made Braveheart and The Patriot, with all of their disembowelings, throat cuttings and, of course, massive historical absurdities. Somehow I thought he'd be more sophisticated with something this important.
The shame of it all is that we know more about what really happened 2000 years ago now than we have done since shortly after the events actually took place. We think in nuance and truth. Not Gibson. Nor does he appear to have read any of the books written in the past 50 years that make the Gospel story so believable, so fleshy and, thus, so convincing.
One example: Barabas. He was a Zealot leader, possibly a local aristocrat. We read our Hebrew and Greek, know about Essenes, Sadducees and Jewish life and culture. We understand. Yet here he is portrayed as a dribbling psychotic. As are most of the Jews in the movie.
So, is it anti-Semitic? Not really. Jews are generally shown as hideous, stupid and barbaric, but then so are the Romans.
Apart from Pontius Pilate, who is here compassion embodied. The thing is, he was a notorious killer who crucified thousands of people without a second thought.
Movie-making requires subtlety, and The Passion is relentlessly violent and nasty. There is no rhythm, no chance for light and purpose and meaning to shine through.
Yes, meaning. More than pain and suffering, so much more.
The flashbacks seem, with one touching exception depicting Jesus as a child, to be mere attempts to push Catholic eucharistic theology onto the audience.
There are vile moments, resembling outtakes from some remake of The Exorcist. A mob of Jewish children morph into tiny devils with murderous faces. Maggots eat away at a dead mule. Satan creeps around, worms crawling up his nose, carrying a perverse baby with hairy back and adult features. None of this is Scriptural, of course. It is also so, well, so anti-humanity.
I wanted majesty and pathos but was given clumsiness and thumping. Yet God's grace and His love still surround me.
If the movie works for you, I am happy. For me, it is prayer, Bible and a dwelling in a God-given imagination that this hyped Hollywood product can never rival.
Michael Coren is a Toronto-based writer and broadcaster. He can be emailed at info@michaelcoren.com and his web site is michaelcoren.com.
I am so happy that my wife and I did. The Passion is about love.
And for me awoken thoughts I have never had before.
(Sorry Paul Harvey....)
THIS is what it's ALL about!!!
Acts 8:26-35
26. Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road--the desert road--that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza."
27. So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
28. and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.
29. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
30. Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32. The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
33. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth."
34. The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?"
35. Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
According to James Dobson, Vic Eliason, and others who do know the Bible, it is scriptural. Who do we believe, experts who have spent their lives studying the Bible or the detractors who probably haven't picked up a Bible in years?
What is this with trying to discredit Mel as some pre-Vatican II fanatic? I've read this several times over the last few days. As for the books about the 'Gospel story' of the last 50 years, most, in my opinion have tried to make Jesus more 'friend' than God, and I agree with Mel for moving away from that direction. Jesus loved us enough to suffer scourging and death at the hands of a brutal regime. Frankly, I'm glad Mel isn't giving us the blonde haired blue-eyed simpering Jesus we've seen in film over the last 50 years!
Clearly, Jesus's mother didn't think so. She was with the Apostles on Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit and became emboldened to share His message.
Most women throughtout the history of Christianity would also disagree. Who do you think has been the backbone of the Faith, continually encouraging their families to attend Mass or get to Church on Sunday, or Wednesday night? Please don't let yourself fall into the feminist trap of the attitude of 'poor pitiful woman being downtrodden by her Church'.
The ancient world was a brutal place, and it is hard for us to accept that being 2000 years removed from the situation. One reason the world has become more civilized was because of the influence of Christians on governments and societies since the time of Jesus. We intend to bring our 14 and 16 yr. olds with us to the movie, and will discuss it in detail afterwards. I think we OWE it to Jesus to have some idea how he suffered and died for our sins.
Ah, then that 'good' Jesuit education might just be the problem! ;o)
A fellow Catholic and I have a congenial disgreement going about the Jesuits. She wants her son to attend Georgetown, and I'm trying to discourage her! I don't want her son to lose his Faith! There are a few Jesuits I admire today, among them, Fr. Joseph Fessio, but it's a very few. Too many have become enamored of their own intelligence and want to disregard Church teachings in favor of their own opinion of said teachings.
Unfortunately, you're hinging your return on something totally ephemeral when you SHOULD be thinking more of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
The gender of the extraneous people on the altar should not be more important than the mystery of the Real Presence. As for the angelic little girls on the altar, give me a break. Half the little girls serving look as bored as half the little boys do. I have noticed something interesting, however. The more girls sign up for altar service, the fewer boys do. The boys begin to see it as a 'girl thing', and that is unfortunate. We need young men to be close to the altar performing service. This is a wonderful way for young men to be open to the vocation of Priesthood. I know that's why some folks were pushing for little girls to be there; they wanted to push the idea of women priests, but that ain't gonna happen.
Well, at least you admit there is a problem, that's half the battle.
Didn't I know my place? Such nasty glares, such turnings away in disgust, such long knives, day after day.
Well I'm no priest, and I have many problems with the shameful Catholic Church. Rather than any scholastic background in theology, I happily attended one of the top 5 schools of Psychological Science, and I can tell you that sentiments like this clearly show problems going far beyond Catholicism, men, or a movie. This even smacks a bit of a persecution complex. Not knowing you I can only say that you need to relax and attempt to reflect on what has made you CONTINUE to be so very bitter years later.
After five years at FR, I am going to tender my resignation.
Well as a duly noted representative of FR, I accept. I might add that this is a wise choice on your part, you need to get away from the flaming environment.
I don't want to be part of a pseudo-political movement that thinks it owns the President of the United States. You guys are going to kill him with your demands that he function as some sort of high priest of America.
See statements like this are just extrodinarily overgeneralizing and stereotypical, common among those suffering and needing to lash out at someone. You don't know me from Adam, yet talk about me "killing him" with demands I've certainly never made. To use a non scientic term its...kinda creepy.
But I'm no longer angry about the same things you are.
That goes without saying. Hope you have a better day, and please think about what I am saying about avoiding flame wars and contemplating what possible good it serves you to be so angry in your heart.
Ancient? Hardly. The Jesuits were originally established less than 500 years ago. Hardly "ancient".
Their actions caused them to be banned in many countries, including Catholic countries. Primarily due to their "political" actions they were banned by Pope Clement XIV in 1773. He conveniently died 3 months later. (Some claim he was poisoned?).
They were re-established by Pius VII in 1814.
They have an interesting history. Worth some research.
Their torment is at their own hands, and is a direct consequence of the choices they alone have made.
Even Satan himself shudders at the Name of Jesus.
Amen.
;-/
I saw The Passion last night and was deeply disappointed. It's ham-fisted and corny, just like Gibson's other movies.
For a good religious film, see The Mission, with Robert DiNero and Jeremy Irons. It has characters (rather than cartoons), nuance, air, rhythm, depth -- all that arty stuff that intelligent minds pick up on and enjoy, and which The Passion is almost completely lacking (I say "almost" because it does have a few redeeming moments).
I think C.S. Lewis makes the point somewhere - in emphasizing the need to make our appreciation of Christ's suffering fresh - that crucifixion was so horrible that Christ's crucifixion didn't become a theme of Christian art until the last generation that had seen real crucifixions had died out.
The sword in the side was not to finish Jesus off, it was to ensure that He was dead. If He had cried out, the Romans would have, at that point, broken His legs. The liquid pouring out was also proof that Jesus had died.
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.