I'm sure I'll be excoriated for this view, but I think Caviezel should have taken the money and donated it to causes that he believes in. Think of the good that he could do with 70+ million dollars. He could end hunger for an entire city's worth of people. I remember thinking this when the Calvin & Hobbes creator turned down what would have been over $100 million for licensing his creations. Think of the good that one could do for that money. I'm not saying they were wrong for making the decision that they made... but if I were in the position where I had the opportunity to make many millions of dollars off of a creation I made, my moral dilemma would be what to do with the money, not whether or not to take it.
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.
HAHAHA! "End hunger"? Sheesh, talk about buying into the Left's propaganda.
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.
Mel Gibson took his reciepts and built a church in California.
I understand what you mean, but that would mean compromising his beliefs. Compromise is failure on the installment plan.
A reasonable view -- but IMHO blood money probably can do little good. When it comes to one's own ethics, is pushing the envelope to do Good worth it?
Thank God, I don't have to answer that question. I am not sure I would not have done just what you suggest -- but could I shave in the morning?
OTOH I have very few personal ethics so it would be easier for me than him ;)