Posted on 05/27/2004 9:12:02 AM PDT by sathers
Edited on 05/27/2004 9:19:02 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Movie star Jim Caviezel has turned down the chance to become a multimillioniare by starring in a series of TV commericals-because he wants to stay true to his strict Catholic beliefs.
The actor has become a hot property since starring as Jesus in Mel Gibson's epic 'The Passion of the Christ,' but the 35 year old has turned down a series of deals--worth an estimated 75 million.
He says, 'I think if I had given way on just one scheme, I would have been tempted to do more. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to make that kind of money quickly. That sum would have secured your future, but I would never have been able to forgive myself.'
Among the deals Caviezel turned down was one for a T-shirt company's new 'Heavenly' line of apparel.
He adds, 'I could see the humor in it, but I think I would have upset a lot of people who get something special from the film.
(Excerpt) Read more at us.imdb.com ...
I understand your reasoning, but this was the same line Judas used on Jesus when Mary broke the vase and anointed his feet---Judas said, "Why not sell that and use the money for the poor?" Jesus said that her WORSHIP was more important than the money or what it bought.
What a great guy, I just want to give him the biggest kiss.
The kiss of Peace.
What a great guy, I just want to give him the biggest kiss.
The kiss of Peace.
What a great guy, I just want to give him the biggest kiss.
The kiss of Peace.
Wish there were more men like him... specifically in my neck of the woods. ;)
Me either. Very impressive.
I don't think he was morally obligated to reject these offers if they were similar to the one included in the article, but his decision shows great piety, and is probably a wise decision, even if he had decided to donate the proceeds to charity.
Ping.
HAHAHA! "End hunger"? Sheesh, talk about buying into the Left's propaganda.
Yes, I guess I'm taking the Judas position here, but I still believe it. There is also a difference in scope here - if that vase had been valuable enough to feed thousands and thousands of starving people, I'm guessing (and I certainly could be wrong) that Jesus would have taken the big view and fed them. Would Mary have worshipped Jesus any less without that vase?
Passion Ping
And the rest of us!!
What a guy!! I look forward to more of his movies and a chance to let my dollars speak to Hollywood for me.
Apparently Jesus thought so. Jesus warned that "the poor you have with you always." He also reprimanded the "rich young ruler" who had tithed all his life and had done good deeds, because he wasn't willing to part with his money to worship Jesus.
I'm reminded of the scripture passage where Jesus says "The poor will be with us always"...
Jim Caveziel was concerned about the ramifications of such trivializing of the "Passion", no matter what could have been done with the money.
WOW--INTEGRITY SUCH THAT FAITH WINS OVER MAMMON!
PRAISE THE LORD AND HATS OFF TO THE MOVIE STAR!
Mel Gibson took his reciepts and built a church in California.
Yes, there is a case to be made. But it is the wrong one. The end does not justify the means in this case. Helping the poor is a good thing. But compromising other Godly principles to accomplish it is not a good thing. The tone of your argument also seems to indicate you are attaching importance to the sheer amount of money as if I could compromise for 70 million but it would be wrong if I did it for just 20 dollars. The only principle you would be following there would be, "Money Talks." or "Anybody can be bought."
Maybe there is hope for Hollywierd after all.
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.