Posted on 07/30/2006 5:13:24 PM PDT by familyop
Dear sinkspur,
What Valpal1 said (better than me) in post #161.
sitetest
In Judaism would encompass a specific acknowledgement of the wrongs, directed to those who were harmed, as well as a sincere effort to undo the damage done. I'd be surprised if Christianity views it much differently.
In Mel's context, yes, this would involve addressing the officers involved, by name, the arresting officer and "sugar tits", as well as addressing the Jewish community. No, Mel didn't do that.
As to whether Mel believes what he says, you have to look at that in the context of his past statements. Clearly his father is a confirmed Jew hater. In the past I've defended him on the basis of not blaming the son for his fathers transgressions. Mel has refused to address his father's beliefs as an issue. There's some legitimacy to that position. However Hutton claims to have been involved in the production and marketing of "The Passion". Unfortunately if that's true, as producer he needs to address these issues. Or deny Hutton's involvement. He did neither.
He's stated he learned his faith from his father, who has never lied to him. Central to his father's faith, not Catholicism, is the takeover of the Vatican by the Jews, through the masons. That raises doubts about Mel in the context of the former statement.
When queried specifically about his fathers Holocaust denial, the best Mel could come up with was that 10 million civilians died in WWII (actually far more), and some were Jews. In view of pops position that the Jews weren't killed, they moved to New York, LA and Sydney, that raises questions.
Personally, I think he meant it.
I also think he's a Hollywood personality, likely left wing on balance, as important politically, or as a moral spokesman, as Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks. But as he's got a platform, so his rants should be addressed
Well...Cartman has, on occasion, done much worst.. :)
Dear SJackson,
"In Judaism would encompass a specific acknowledgement of the wrongs, directed to those who were harmed, as well as a sincere effort to undo the damage done. I'd be surprised if Christianity views it much differently."
Typically speaking, for Catholics, sacramental forgiveness and absolution are obtained through the use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Specificity of sin is only absolutely required in the Confessional. For a verbal insult, an apology to the specific individuals is nice, and may even be required as part of the penance imposed by a priest in the Confessional (although I'm not even sure that that could be required). It would be hard, in my own view, to wring from Catholic moral theology or pastoral practice that Mr. Gibson would have some absolute requirement to apologize generally and publicly to Jews for his anti-semitic statements.
Generally speaking, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the sinner reconciles with God, through the priest acting in the place and with the authority of Jesus Christ, and reconciles also with the community, through the agency of the priest acting as the pastor and leader of the community. Through ordination, the priest is made capable of being a channel of Divine forgiveness, and through the priest's position of authority in the Church hierarchy, the priest may act in the name of the community.
A perfectly acceptable and appropriate penance for a penitent who confesses sins like this may be to say some specific prayers, and make sure he gets to his AA meetings every night.
In that his comments weren't made publicly, but rather to a few individuals trying to arrest him, it seems harder to me to hold him accountable to a more specific public apoolgy. The details of his arrest and his statements were made public was beyond his control, and likely not in accord with his wishes.
As well, I don't know what personal apologies that Mr. Gibson has made in person, directly, to the arresting officers, but at this time, he may be prevented from doing so by legal issues. As it was, I was surprised that his attorneys let him say as much as he did.
As to whether or not Mr. Gibson is anti-semitic because his father is anti-semitic, I have my doubts. Frankly, the fact that when he got drunk this all came out suggests to me that part of what drove him to drink was the discrepancy between his love and admiration for his father and his inability to love and admire some of the bile that pours forth from his father.
Wine doesn't exactly give truth, but may point to repressed conflict. I think that's what we're seeing here.
I've experienced this a little bit in my own life, even if I'm not an alcoholic.
sitetest
Maybe what Mel Gibson needs is a direct line to God, you know like what it says in the Book of Hebrews, like for healing from his drinking addiction.
Dear SJackson,
If it interests here, here is a thread that reports the reaction of at least one Catholic priest:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1675343/posts
sitetest
He abhors his father's anti-semitism, yet exhibits the same anti-semitism himself? Odd, that.
I simply find it implausible that a person under the influence will, out of the blue, suddenly develop a bigoted streak.
Gibson has and will endure humiliation being the focus of discussion, derision, compassion, etc. He will never be viewed the same again, no matter what he says.
You seem to know little of the long term effects of chronic alcoholism. Gibson is a 50 year old chronic alcoholic by his own admission.
I laugh at your comment here. I once bartended for 3 years. One of my relatives is an alcoholic. I probably know a heck of a lot more than you do first-hand, by having dealt with alcoholics up front and personal when working years ago. Mel is indeed an alcoholic, and it indeed is a dreadful and ugly chronic problem that tends to ruin the lives of those around them most closely. Most alcoholics don't make anti-semitic outbursts when drunk. Mel did. By his history and upbringing, it appears drunk or sober, he is an anti-semite. That is separate from his alcoholism, and his drinking is no excuse for his anti-Jewish tirade. Try again to find a justification for what he did.
In an article I read today, they strongly implied that being away from his wife for six months on the shoot for his new movie ("Apocalypto") was what drove him to drink. It said that she keeps him on the straight and narrow. Perhaps they had a fight that night and he drove off and got a bit tanked.
Except that he's made a lot of movies and he's had a drinking problem for a lot of years.
Dear sinkspur,
"He abhors his father's anti-semitism, yet exhibits the same anti-semitism himself? Odd, that."
Not so odd to me. He abhors it when he's rational, but even then, wishes that he could identify more with his father by accepting his father's beliefs. When drunk, his inhibition against identifying with those beliefs is lowered, and he does so, not because he believes his father's garbage, but because he has a felt need to identify with his father.
Listen, having seen his sensitivity to the subject of his father's anti-semitism and other looneyism, I have no doubt in my own mind that this is a deep, sore, painful source of mental conflict and anguish for Mr. Gibson. Having seen a few of his films, I have no doubt that he's got lots and lots of unresolved issues with his father.
That some aspect of those conflicts would arise when he starts drinking makes perfect sense to me.
He's a sick and twisted soul.
"Gibson has and will endure humiliation being the focus of discussion, derision, compassion, etc. He will never be viewed the same again, no matter what he says."
I agree.
sitetest
Oh--don't get me wrong--I was not making excuses for him. I was just reporting on what is out there. Living out in the jungles of South America away from your family certainly can make one a bit daft. His apology did not directly deal with the Jews, though; that was bad.
BTW, this has nothing to do with his films.
Yeah, but it beats the *ell out of being away from your family for a year in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's his personal issue to deal with.
Dear SJackson,
"I wasn't addressing the religious aspect of his transgression, which is his personal responsibility, rather the secular, his responsibility to those he harmed, which has become a public issue."
Hmm... Okay. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by this:
"In Judaism would encompass a specific acknowledgement of the wrongs, directed to those who were harmed, as well as a sincere effort to undo the damage done. I'd be surprised if Christianity views it much differently."
sitetest
Consider theft, two issues. A trangression against God by violating a commandment. Also a transgression against the individual, which requires a both a sincere, secular apology and reimbursement. As a condition of addressing the religious issue. I recognize the role of Confession (should I have capitalized that?) for a Catholic, and wasn't addressing the religious component of the equasion, I'm not that interested in addressing the differences, rather the secular responsibility to the victim.
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.