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.

[Abundy]

Respect my beliefs as I respect yours and keep your private pity to yourself.

that is the second time you've posted that thought. Sorry, but it can't and doesn't wash.

First, a Christian that prays for you prays not out of pity but of love for another soul, a desire to see all souls find eternal life and at the direction of the Son of God.

Second, until you understand these facts you can never respect Christianity.

Therefore don't implore Christians to "respect your beliefs as your respect" theirs until you actually do.

[Cold Heat]

He said, "I do not believe that"

I do not know what else he could have said that would not be a attack on his father in a public forum.

If you choose to say that this is not total disagreement and he needed to do more, than you are expecting far too much from a son who obviously still cares about his dad.

But, I fear I am wasting time, energy and bandwidth with you and other detractors.

I thoroughly respect what Gibson has created in this film and I admire his respect for his aged and wrong Father.

This generation of bigots has just about disappeared from the U.S.

Hopefully, it will remain so as my own Father was just like him.

[SoCar]

Thanks for your response and your understanding. That is my main problem with Gibson, he has not stated what you just have.

[Torie]

Another aspect of this movie that I find disturbing is the underlying, and sometimes out in the open, sentiment by some Christians the this may be a tool to convert people.

That is a core doctrine of Christianity. Get used to it. Christians hit up this near atheist from time to time. I just say no, politely, and thank them for their interest in my soul, but tell them I am a lost cause. It is no big deal.

If you don't want to be subjected to that, in this free land of self expression, this America, protected by the most robust judicial interpretation of the free speech clause on this planet, which I celebrate, then perhaps you should consider moving to Israel, where such is proscribed. In America, the vigorous and sometimes irksome rubbing of shoulders and minds and ideas, is of our very essence. And I love it.

[Torie]

Thanks, but now I just dissented from another of your posts. :)

[SoCar]

What you are saying is that I cannot find eternal life unless I believe as you do. Right? Therefore as a Christian you and your beliefs are right and I as a Jew am wrong. Correct? So what you mean is that I am doomed to eternal damnation unless I accept as the truth what you do. That's what you mean right?

Can you not see the problem here???

[Pelham]

"I come not to bring peace, but a sword."

Irascible, no, ignorant surely.

[Cold Heat]

I plan to see the film a second time, soon.

I am sure that I missed many details as I became so involved in the drama.

I occasionally became so immersed in my own dissection of my faith that I often ignored the subtitles.LOL!

It is a must see.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Is it worse to be antisemitic than antichristian?

One might get that impression.

[ultima ratio]

Here is an article--actually an interview--from Zenit News Service that came out today, showing how the leftist propaganda machine is still churning out the kind of slanders and bigotry you and Dennisw take as gospel truth. Yet they are ridiculous lies.

---

Why "Hitler and the Vatican" Fails as History

Interview With Father Peter Gumpel, Postulator of Pius XII's Cause

ROME, MARCH 3, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The new book "Hitler and the Vatican" by Peter Godman "is exaggerated in relation to the work done and the quoted documents," says the postulator of Pius XII's cause of beatification.

On Feb. 20, Godman, a New Zealander who is professor of the Latin Middle Ages and the Renaissance at the University of Tübingen, presented his book "Der Vatikan und Hitler" in Berlin. The English edition of the book goes on sale this month.

The new volume is very critical of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, especially in regard to what Godman thinks the Holy See should have done to oppose Nazism and defend the Jews.

The book doesn't convince Jesuit Father Peter Gumpel, the postulator of Pius XII's cause.

"Godman has worked only with scant documents related to Pius XI's pontificate," the priest says. "How can he present a study on relations between the Vatican and Hitler?"

In this interview with ZENIT, Father Gumpel, one of the leading historians on the relations between the Church and Nazism, shares his impressions of the book.

Q: The main thesis of Godman's book is that the Holy See did little against Nazism because the Holy Office and the Secretariat of State had divergent lines and lacked contact with one another.

Father Gumpel: For those who know how the government of the Holy See functions, it is obvious that this is an absurd thesis.

It is obvious that Godman has no idea how work is done in the Holy See. In expressing its opinion on such a delicate question as that of relations with the Nazi regime, how could the Holy Office not have first consulted the Secretariat of State?

Moreover, Godman perhaps does not know that in those years the Pope also held the post of prefect of the Holy Office. Both Pius XI as well as Pius XII were "ex officio" prefects of the Holy Office.

Q: What were the internal discussions in the Holy See on the way to confront Nazism?

Father Gumpel: Initially, Pius XI declared himself in favor of the publication of a series of propositions against Nazism. In particular he sought to condemn totalitarianism, the idolatry of the Reich, the theories of race and blood and, even more so, policies contrary to the life of the weakest.

Various schemes and plans of such condemnations were prepared by the Holy Office. At a given moment, the whole idea was shelved because Pius XI and Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli [the future Pius XII] began to prepare the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" [against Nazism].

Pius XI and Pacelli thought the propositions were not very effective, so they decided that an encyclical was better. Godman deplores the fact that the condemnations of the Holy Office were not published. Again, in this case Godman shows that he does not know how the Holy See functions.

Godman thinks that a series of proposals of the Holy Office were more important than an encyclical. But there is another aspect that shows how Godman does not even know well the history of those years.

The publication of "Mit Brennender Sorge" was kept secret for security reasons. The Nazis discovered it only on the afternoon of Saturday, March 20, 1937, shortly before it was read and distributed in churches.

The Nazis were informed by an employee of the press that was printing the copies of the encyclical. "Mit Brennender Sorge" was read and distributed in all churches during the Mass on Sunday, March 21, 1937.

For a while, the Nazis considered intervening in the churches, but they would have run the risk of a civil war. The Hitler regime was caught totally unawares.

French intellectual Robert D'Harcourt, who was in Germany at the time, wrote in Etudes/Revue Catholique d'Interet General, of May 5, 1937, that the publication of "Mit Brennender Sorge" was like a bomb.

The Catholic organization had not made a mistake; ... it succeeded in getting around the control of the Gestapo and had reached the churches.

On that occasion, the Catholic community also showed notable moral solidity. The people were happy and Hitler was furious. He ordered the confiscation of the presses that had printed the encyclical and the arrest of those responsible.

If it was so difficult to have the encyclical reach the population, how can Godman think that it would have been possible to send so many individual propositions of the Holy Office?

Q: The New Zealand author argues that Pius XI and Pius XII had an opportunist attitude.

Father Gumpel: The Holy See has always acted responsibly, considering all the possibilities. In every action, the pastoral concern was taken into account for the fate of the Catholic community, of the other communities, and of the population.

Godman enormously underestimates the Nazi persecution against Catholics: arrested priests, destroyed churches, closed schools, arrested Catholic leaders sent to concentration camps.

Between 1933 and 1937, in 36 months the Holy See sent more than 50 formal written protests to the Nazi regime, charging violations of the concordat. Hitler's government never responded.

In Rome, protests were reported in three white books that were sent in a diplomatic bag to all the German bishops, to let them know what the Holy See was doing in defense of their faithful.

All the protests of the Holy See were reported in a volume published in Germany in 1965: "Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung - I. Von der Ratifizierung des Reichskonkordats bis zur Enzyklika 'Mit brennender Sorge.'" Bearbeitet von Dieter Albrecht. VKZ A 1, Mainz, 1965 [The Exchange of Notes Between the Holy See and the Government of the Federal Republic -- I. On the Ratification of the Federal Concordat of the Encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge'"].

Little is said about this aspect, but it is extremely relevant. It must also be for this reason that the German newspaper Die Welt, in the review of Godman's book, speaks about a decadent work and accuses him of having been negligent.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"What you are saying is that I cannot find eternal life unless I believe as you do. Right? Therefore as a Christian you and your beliefs are right and I as a Jew am wrong. Correct? So what you mean is that I am doomed to eternal damnation unless I accept as the truth what you do. That's what you mean right?"

Um, there is no problem, unless Christians are right. If Christians are wrong, and Christ is not the Messiah, then you are right--but the Christian beliefs should have no power to threaten you.

[Abundy]

Why does Satan meandering through the crowd become some sinister plot piece on the part of Gibson?

Logically, Satan would have to work his way through the crowd to get close enough to tempt Jesus. From an artistic/asthetic point of view, having Satan walking beside Jesus the entire time is not as powerful.

Satan tempted Jesus early on - the conversation where Satan states that no man can take all of our sins upon himself and that we aren't worth it.

After this conversation it seems more powerful to have Satan some distance from Christ, but within sight as if to say "you can walk away from this torture and join me."

Not once, not ever, did I equate Satan with the Priests or the Jewish people in the crowd. Satan is Satan. Satan is evil. Satan is humanity sans Jesus.

While this storyline may not be part of the approved Gospels, I found it particularly uplifting and thought provoking. It forced me to confront whole new line of "what ifs?"

Primarily among them is what if Jesus had not given in to temptation. [Surely He was tempted during his crucifiction.]

Further, this storyline helps hammer home Jesus' sacrifice.

Could part of the problem of the overly sensitive be that they don't have a Faith-based frame of reference to evaluate these issues?

I truly believe that is the case and that people are being overly sensitive.

I came away from the movie angry -angry at myself and my sins. I came away from the movie angry that the Son of God endured such torture for my sake since I'm not worthy of such sacrifice. I did not come away angry at any group of people except the Media, Hollywood and some of the more hysterical Jewish leaders for creating such a fuss about nothing. Not that the movie will cause me to hunt any of them down...I'll just boycott these imbeciles and keep an open dialouge in defense of the movie.

Psycho's will always find excuses to act out their dementia. Gnashing one's teeth and tearing one's robe over a movie becuase of what it might cause is just plain silly.

[SoCar]

No, I love America and it's free speech. I will however not sit back quietly when those who practice my religion are subjected to prejudice. I can accept that Christianity is the dominant belief of my fellow countrymen, but when I feel they go too far I will speak out. I am an American and have no plans to become an Israeli. I love this country more then I can ever say. That does not mean I have to accept what the majority has to say without comment or criticism.

[Torie]

I take it you thought the visual message was that Satan was trying to get close to Christ, rather than poisoning the minds of the mob, or equating the mob to Satan, as Satan. Perhaps we all see what we "want" to see.

[Torie]

Give em hell. My point, is that one can take being hit upon in good spirit. Christians think it is an act of love, not hate. It is their faith.

[Abundy]

What you are saying is that I cannot find eternal life unless I believe as you do. Right? Therefore as a Christian you and your beliefs are right and I as a Jew am wrong. Correct? So what you mean is that I am doomed to eternal damnation unless I accept as the truth what you do. That's what you mean right?

Yes.

Can you not see the problem here???

No there is no problem here. But you can't realize or understand that there is no problem because you can't understand my position without a similar Faith. Nor do I expect you to understand my position.

I'm not an anti-semite merely because I am a Christian. And while I might believe that Christ is the only means to the Father, I won't be beating you over the head with a Bible. However, if you truly respected my beliefs, you would not have a problem with me saying a prayer for all non-believer's souls from time to time as you would understand that such a prayer comes from a Love of God and His creations.

The problem arises because it appears that you cannot agree to disagree with me. I would prefer that I'm wrong on that, but that's just the way it appears.

Understanding that the written word cannot convey emotion and inflection, if anything I've just written comes across as trite, arrogant or antagonistic I apologize. Truly I did not intend for the words to be construed as such.

[Cold Heat]

If your faith is so weak as to be threatened by what someone else says about a film that you have not seen for yourself, I must suspect that you have no clue as to what you are saying.

There are no threats to the Jewish faith.

The only people who who could possibly come away from the film with that thought are people who already felt threatened.

The same can be said for antisemitic thinking.

These thoughts would have had to have been present prior to seeing the film.

How many times and in how many ways, must Christians express this?

[Sabertooth]

Charge one as to departing from the gospels to make Jews look worse than the gospel story:

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging.

I think this is picking at nits. John 19:6 says that the chief priests and officers, who were doing the bidding of Caiaphus, wanted Jesus Crucified after having seen the results of the scourging.

It's hard to argue that Caiaphus would have been squeamish at Christ's torture and mutilation, so it's hard to see how the license taken by Gibson in the scene you describe unfairly reflects on Caiaphus.

Charge two is that the satan wraiths merge with the Jewish "mob" (which wraiths are also apparently not in the gospels). Whether the overall gestalt of the message is that the Jewish mob were temporarily taken over by Satan, or that they were the functional equivalent of Satan, I don't know. I have not seen the film.

There is no "merging." Satan's spirit form walks among the Jews at one point, shadowing Mary, Mother of Jesus, who is walking amongs some Jews on the opposite side of the courtyard. There is no indication that Satan has possessed the Jews, or is in league with them.

But to the extent Mel departs from the gospels, to make the Jews look worse to believers than the gospels "teach," he is fair game for criticism.

What say you?

To the extent that Gibson departed from the Gospels and related Scriptures (such as Isaiah 52 and 53, as well as Psalm 22), the intent was for dramatic effect, not to make the Jews look bad. Sometimes the deviations create balance in favor of some righteous Jews. In the trial before the Sanhedrin, Gibson depicts two of the chief priests as objecting to the trial, yet they are not found in Scripture.

These may have been Joseph of Arimathea, a Sadducee, and Nicodemus, a Pharisee. Both were members of the Sanhedrin and were secretly followers of Christ, and we learn later that they arranged for Jesus' burial. I'll make a point of looking for them in the credits the next time I see the film.

I agree that Kraut's overall thrust is over the top

That's being charitable. To falsely accuse someone of a blood libel is to commit the same libel.

I'll be following Krauthammer to see if he reconsiders at all. I very much want to hear him go at it with Dennis Prager, who is also Jewish, but has been supportive of Gibson's efforts in making this film, and his sincerity in trying to avoid any impression of anti-Semitism.

[Torie]

Good points all, but cinematically, there is a difference between ordering execution (it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it), and witnessing it, with seeming pleasure. You do so the difference, no? Granted, I have not seen the film, so I am just pounding the keyboard.

[SoCar]

Christian beliefs do not threaten me in any way. We will all find out one day who is right. What does annoy me though is the Christian belief that no matter how morally a G-d fearing person one may be, if you don't accept Christ as your savior you are doomed to hell

The G-d that I worship will accept all those who are good and not abandon those who whose mortal beliefs regarding the acceptance of Christ as their savior turn out to be correct or not.

In short, your religion dooms me to eternal damnation because I am "wrong," while my religion accepts you as a good person although you are "wrong." I am not threatened by that. I do however resent and reject it though. It seems condescending and not worthy to me, IMHO.