Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[presidio9]

That's why I said "good." It was never about the movie in the first place. Liberals had gotten to the society to the point where people were araid to be proud of their Catholicism in public. When cool guys like Mel say its ok, it scares the hell out of them.

[Mamzelle]

link to Gorin's article, "The Jews who Cried Wolf"

[churchillbuff]

Buff, Krauthammer's perspective is just as valid as yours.

True, so why do you have a problem with my expressing my opinion? Is it only Krauthhammer who gets to be in "high dudgeon"?

[gcruse]

Which, goes to prove, [Jews] do not believe that Christ is the Savior

This needs proving to you?

 - they believe he was only a man and horribly resent the fact they are shown killing him. Why would they care if Christ was only a man?

Because they have been killed by the thousands because of it. 

[ninenot]

The most unendearing aspect of Christianity is its insistence that only through Christianity can one "be saved"; all others being damned to eternal torture.

This statement is false.

The Church has taught that redemption is available to all who are baptized.

Some baptisms are traditional--water, etc. Some are by martyrdom. And some are 'by desire,' which (roughly) describes the GOOD MEN who are not Christian.

E.G., Moses, Abraham, Isaac--who were ALL seen as in Heaven with Christ by the Apostles. These men are 'by desire' baptisms with Christ, as are many others about whom we do not specifically know.

[Mamzelle]

re: a man of Krauthammer's intellect)))

Intellect is not sense or wisdom or even intelligence--and it looks like Krauthammer has none of the three.

Time for some new pundits! Ann Coulter has written well this week on "The Passion"--

[independentmind]

I wonder if devout Jews understand that they are making a critical mistake by aligning themselves with secular leftists rather the Christian right. I've read enough comments on FR, though, to realize that some Jews are sincere about their fears related to the film; the problem is that they are wrong.

[ninenot]

In addition to my previous response, I suspect that the Church's specific teaching on the Jewish people's individual redemption would be something like: "for those who follow the Law of Moses, (etc ., etc.) redemption was earned by Christ..."

[Just mythoughts]

There is a linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust. Anti-semitism fostered by Christianity created the climate by which Jews could be scapegoated by the Nazis.

The most unendearing aspect of Christianity is its insistence that only through Christianity can one "be saved"; all others being damned to eternal torture. Such a belief system breeds a certain arrogance, and fosters contempt for people of other faiths. The Jews have taken the brunt of this contempt for two thousand years, and they can hardly be blamed for being suspicious of anything that fuels its fire, especially when the fire itself is lit from a tinderbox of fanaticism.

"There is a linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust."
NO! Let's be very clear here with using our words.

"Christianity" is a term for followers of Christ. Claiming to be Christian or relating to Christianity depends on who is using the WORD.

Christ Himself warned of many who would come in His name. Now I have no problem comparing what churches teach to what is Written. I reject the idea that all those who call themselves Christian do in fact follow Christ's teachings.

[dansangel]

I am truly surprised, as well. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

*ping* to T.Smith

[Sabertooth]

It's colored mine. I thought of Krauthammer as being a rational objective writter for the most part, now I'm seeing through him. The amen corner doesn't want Passion Plays and Nativity Scenes (and Catholic 'priests')in the public domain. It still is as it was.

"Amen corner" rhetoric is uncalled for. Assess each by their own actions, not as members of this or that group. Too much of the latter already in this discussion.

I can't source it now, but Mel was irritated that the 'critics' are trying to blame the Holocaust on Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth, but yet, it's a big part of their arsenal in taking down Catholicism.

Hitler was a neo-Pagan and an occultist.

Did some Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants particpate in the Holocaust? Yes.

Other Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants sheltered Jews and liberated Europe at the risk and cost of their own lives.

Ascribing the Holocaust to Christianity is itself a blood libel.

Then it was Barrabas or Jesus? Today it's Christians or Islamists? The ADL, has made its choice, with Krauthammer and Safire in tow.

I think you go too far here. The rhetoric is already excessive, let's not compound it.

So far with the mainstream, they are slipping, hopefully some of the 'damage' done over the last 45 years can be undone. The Passion may be the kickoff point in taking our culture back, to the chagrin of the 'NYT'.

I'm leaning toward the conclusion of Professor David Allen White of the Naval Academy, who called "The Passion of the Christ" a "turning point in human History."

How that History will turn is largely up to us, and what we do in this moment.

[rbmillerjr]

"There is a linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust."

There is no link between Christianity and the Holocaust. Period.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Buff, Krauthammer's perspective is just as valid as yours. Twenty minutes from now, you'll be in high dudgeon about something else. "

Exactly. America lurches from one sensational happening to another. Before it was Janet Jackson's boob. Now the the Passion. Next couple of weeks it will something else. Maybe the movie about Troy will be the next biggest blockbuster money making movie of all time.

I have a concern that the fact that so many people have been swept up in seeing this movie says as much about the power of publicity, the dominance of the media, the culture war, and the craving for ever more sensational images, as it does about Christian piety. If the movie had been 20% less violent it would probably garnered no criticism but then maybe nobody would have gone to see it. What made it so different than other movies about the life of Christ? It was the degree of violence. Instead of being what other biblical epics were billed as "The Greatest Story Ever Told, this was the Bloodiest Story Ever Told.

[x]

Krauthammer handles the issues particularly ineptly, probably because he's writing more from the gut than from the head:

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ... Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. ... Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands.

Is it really true that the Jewish story or Muslim story doesn't involve "others"? Or is Krauthammer cropping a picture or cutting a film to take out unwanted faces? Does it follow that if the Jewish or Muslim or Christian story didn't involve others it wouldn't be of interest to outsiders and non-believers? Don't such stories have a universal meaning to all, regardless of whether one believes or belongs? Many Jews would say that of the Exodus story. Many who are at least nominal Christians would say the same of the crucifixion.

And what does it mean to say that "everyone has a story and a right to its story," and to essentially say that the "story of your story is my story -- the story of the persecution of my people." Don't the two propositions contradict? Does one story trump the other? Does the Christian story amount to more than the persecution of the Jews for Krauthammer? Is there not some other relevance of the story, even to non-believers.

Krauthammer seems to believe that we live in wholly separate and self-contained traditions, and that what goes on in another tradition is of no concern to us, except in so far as it attacks or impinges on us. Is that really the case? If traditions are to be hermetically sealed against one another, how does he justify bringing "democracy" to Iraq by force? Is there some inconsistency in Krauthammer's treatment of various cultural traditions?

He has every right to his opinion, but it sounds like he's not the best judge or critic for the picture. In other words, he doesn't even try to find it's good points and bad ones and achieve a balanced judgement, and those who are looking for a fair judgement of Gibson's film will have to look elsewhere.

I haven't seen the film, and don't have an opinion. I did come across a comment (not relevant to this article, but still perhaps of interest) in another review:

most critics last week circled their wagons and took shots at The Passion of the Christ, complaining about excessive violence. It seems like the old story of people only resenting movies with serious content. Casual violence shown just for fun doesn’t raise critics’ ire; they only get upset when violence is made to matter, when it’s presented artistically.

Movie journalists revealed their cultural biases in last week’s attacks on Mel Gibson, but the hysterical denunciations also exposed their dishonest esthetic criteria. One reason we’re regularly assaulted with garish, smutty action films like Twisted is because that’s what is routinely accepted in the culture. It was stunning to see David Denby on The Charlie Rose Show call The Passion of the Christ "a snuff movie," the kind of insensitive comment that would never be applied to, say, Schindler’s List, out of simple cultural respect. Denby breaches that caution–and appears righteous in doing so–because contemporary film culture is dominated by disbelieving skepticism. If there is a lack of piety in Gibson’s film, it has been outmatched by the cynicism of incredulous reviewers–and by the weekly tide of sarcastic, nihilistic, anti-human movies like Twisted.

In print, Denby chose a more considered condemnation, "a sickening death trip," which could describe most of the movies that have been pitched to the public as thrill rides–from Speed, Pulp Fiction, The Blair Witch Project, Gladiator to such middlebrow morbidity as American Beauty, In the Bedroom, Elephant and demonlover. These films construct a faithless and hip aura in which a subject like The Passion of the Christ can be blithely derided.

[Just mythoughts]

"There is no link between Christianity and the Holocaust. Period."

Exactly! Making that claim is a "hidden" way to place the blame on Christ.

[Servant of the 9]

Then how come Jews were called Christ killers for centuries? Who was promoting this? The butchers and bakers? The cooks and candle stick makers?

No one had to promote it, it was part of the zeitgeist for 1500 years.

Christians vs. Jews
Christians vs. Islam
But mainly Christian vs. Christian in the great intramural religious wars.

Catholic Church vs. Arian Church
Roman Catholic Church vs. Orthodox Catholic church
Roman Catholic Church vs. Albigensian
Roman Catholic Church vs. Protestants
Protestants (Lutheran) vs. Protestants (Calvinist)
Protestants (Zwingli) vs. Protestants (Lutheran)
Church of England vs. Roman Catholic Church
and that's just the highlight reel.

By the end of the Intramural Religious wars, much of Europe was practically depopulated. There are many reports that a man could ride for days across Germany, for instance, and never see another living soul, just abandoned farms and villages.
The wars stopped when there weren't enough people left to fight them.

So9

[rbmillerjr]

"What made it so different than other movies about the life of Christ? It was the degree of violence."

It is the first modern movie made about the Passion of Jesus Christ, solely.

No modern movie focuses on this loving act by our God. Giving His Son for us. That is why Christians are going to see this movie.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"The most unendearing aspect of Christianity is its insistence that only through Christianity can one "be saved"; all others being damned to eternal torture. Such a belief system breeds a certain arrogance, and fosters contempt for people of other faiths."

True.

[MEGoody]

I usually like Charlie, but he's off base on this one.

[MEGoody]

"Anti-semitism fostered by Christianity created the climate by which Jews could be scapegoated by the Nazis."

The idea of a 'master race' is pointedly evolutionist, not Christian.

"The most unendearing aspect of Christianity is its insistence that only through Christianity can one "be saved"; all others being damned to eternal torture."

Oh come on - just Christianity thinks it is the only way? If you think that, you need to study up on some other religions.