Posted on 08/02/2003 4:47:30 AM PDT by DPB101
I'm with you. I will reserve one. I wonder if it will be like trying to find a conservative author's book in a major bookstore. You know, only one copy, or we don't have it, maybe you would like this instead?...
Good points. Some of Gibson's critics focus on the idea that rejection of Vatican II must also include a rejection of absolving the Jewish people of the charge of deicide (killing Christ). I have read and heard a lot of debates about Vatican II but never one that focused on the issue of the crucifixion of Christ. The implied insinuation is that someone who has problems with Vatican II must also be antisemitic. There is no such connection.
I consulted my father on this who taught at a Catholic college BEFORE Vatican II. He was never taught to hold "the Jews" collectively as an entire people as guilty for the crucifixion. Conservative Catholics who like the old Latin Mass or who disapprove of the liberalization and modernization of the Church after Vatican II are not more likely to be anti-Jewish or anti-semitic.
Waving a flag of Nazi hysteria at contemporary Catholics really does very little to elevate religious discussion. The implied slurs and slanders are out of order. The style of worship preferred by Catholics has nothing to do with the antisemitic controversies alleged. If you recite the "Our Father" in Latin ("Pater Noster"), the words mean the same thing. You don't suddenly become more likely to be antisemitic just because the words are in Latin.
Whatever quotes are attributed to Mel Gibson's father are his words and his alone. Contemporary Catholics are not burdened by a "collective guilt" for whatever controversies from European history the non-Catholic critics decide should be issued as renewed charges carrying polemical significance and malicious insinuations.
Is there any word on distribution to theatres? In my rural area, I'm just curious.
You made a good point:
As long as Christians, and Catholics in particular, capitulate and 'tone down' whatever others find offensive, no matter how true, then all is right with the world.
One must earn respect. If Christians don't feel strongly enough to stand up and say "NO" when someone sues to remove a Nativity Scene from a town green, they should expect people to roll over them. I know about the "turn the other cheek" stuff but there comes a time when if you don't stand up, your faith is in danger.
Latin is not "God's language." Basically, it was the equivalent of English at the time that Christianity spread throughout Western Europe. The Franks, Gauls, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Britons, Irish, Visigoths, Spaniards, and Italians were unified by their common "Latin" Christianity. Other languages have also been languages of the Church - Greek, Syriac, Slavonic, etc. The scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (translated into Latin later). Because Christianity in the West developed within the domain of the Roman Empire, it was inevitable that the written language of that civilization (Latin) was used to spread the writings of Christianity. Greek has remained the liturgical language of the Greek Orthodox Church.
English is now used by both the Anglicans and Catholics in the English speaking world. The only difference with Latin is that followers of Jesus like Peter and Paul interacted with Latin-speaking peoples during the first century A.D. If a sacred character has come to be associated with it, it is because of its proximity to the lives of the apostles during their missionary efforts in the first century, close to the actual life of Christ. The Greek of the New Testament also has this association. Keeping true to the metaphor, it would be more accurate to think of Aramaic or Hebrew as "God's language" because Christ would have spoken these directly. Scholars tend to think he probably also spoke some Greek. But, really, obviously, "God" would understand all human languages and in a theological sense, God is not limited to the sociology and anthropology of historic human languages. We would expect there to be many languages in Heaven.
The sacred qualities associated with Latin have a lot to do with its being a language for Christian prayers and the Catholic Mass, the central rite of Catholic worship, for many centuries. Numerous Christian writings were composed in Latin during the Middle Ages, etc. So you have the image of devout Christians speaking and writing in Latin as a cultural phenomenon. Ecclesiastical Latin is a vestige of an era associated with the spread of Christianity and the age of saints. Whether the "Our Father" is recited in Latin ("Pater Noster"), in Greek, or in English or any other language, the effect is the same. The sound of Gregorian Chant sung in Latin certainly can seem to have a very mystical quality. Whether this is because of cultural associations or an actual inner holiness to sacred music is a source of interesting speculation.
Good point. From a Catholic standpoint alone, which I am, much capitulation has already been made in the 30 plus years since Vatican II. And, sadly, now those Catholics who advocate a return to reverence or adherence to Rome or whatever, are labeled as fringe elements and right wing, by others and the liberal media (pouncing like lions on this juicy treat) and even by other Catholics. Witness the stir that Fr. Pavone (Priests for Life) or Cardinal Arinze cause, just among Catholics!!
I'm getting sick and tired of all these "Bible scholars" who run around telling everyone what the Bible "really says"---as if Gutenberg and Wycliffe hadn't solved that problem for everybody. Besides what's this stuff about not being "true to Catholic teaching"? I haven't heard of anybody with real doctrinal authority in the Catholic Church denouncing the script---just a bunch of "progressives" who'd be disciplined if the Holy See could find its cojones again. Lookee--I've got a Bible; I've read it; I'm going to the movie, and I'll decide if the movie is true to Scripture or Catholic teaching.
The problem, the scholars said, was not that Gibson was anti-Semitic, but that his film could unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence.
Outrageous anti-democratic, almost totalitarian thinking. Quit treating the American public in general, and Christians in particular, as a herd of behemos that have to be shunted into a corral lest they stampede. "Unintentionally incite..."??? Yeah, and the display of an American flag could "unintentionally incite" attacks on Muslims, by this supercilious "logic."
One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was, this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
"Great crises in Christian-Jewish relations"? You don't provoke a "crisis" with another religion by setting forth in print or film the core narratives of your own religion (speaking of that, I wonder what "Sistah" Boys' is?) Boys should let the Magisterium decide if Mel's film is doctrinally accurate, not Abe Foxman.
Do a google news search any day of the week and you will find lawsuits filed by the ACLU across the nation which seek to tear down the Christian faith.
We are not the Soviet Union. Bolsheviks and Bolshevik judges do not rule us. We need to take back our country, our traditions and our heritage.
That would likely be St Cloud or near the U of M, the two hubs of PC in MN-- although Duluth has become a Green Party center.
You raised a good point. I'm not sure they believe the film could cause violence, but by repeating the charge, they are hoping violence might be incited. Who would cause the violence? Not Christians. With the author's logic, it would be Gibson's fault if some rowdy Jews got violent about the film. The rowdy Jews would, of course, be as innocent as doves.
The battery in the world's brain is just about depleted.
One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was, this wasn't really something you could fix..."
"...All the way through the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty..."
"...We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
I've not found any information on just what his status is.
Anti-Semitism is stupid and false charges of bias by any minority is even more stupid. Its like "crying wolf" and when it happens for real no-one will be listening.
But the scholars and the Anti-Defamation League have not backed down. They are pressing Gibson to show them the rough cut that he has screened for others.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said: "If you say this is not anti-Semitic and this is a work of love and reconciliation, why are you afraid to show it to us?"
Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Lauer said, by underscoring Christianity's Jewish roots. The actor who plays Jesus, Jim Caviezel, appears Semitic...
Those who acknowledge a higher power than the state are threats to the liberal establishment. Liberals cannot tolerate those who judge, who are not cattle,who will fight on principle.
That is why they must demonize Mel Gibson and his family.
The Roman Empire was a big place, and just because you were a soldier in the Roman army, it did not mean that you were from Rome (or even had set foot in what is now Italy). People in the eastern part of the Empire mostly spoke Greek, and it's from these people that the army stationed in the middle-east drew its recruits
WHO CARES? Where were all these people when a propaganda piece like Bowling for Columbine came out? Were they complaining? What happened to "artistic license" (ala Mapplethorpe) or "artistic expression" (ala Piss Christ) or "art for art's sake" (the Madonna covered in elephant crap)?????? WHERE WERE THEY?? You see they lose on their own terms. Either everyone gets to offend, or no one does. They can shove their complaints up their bum.
I haven't seen the movie obviously, but I can't imagine it is "anti-semetic" unless "anti-semetic" means "about a religion that isn't (secular, non-culturally oppresive) judaism."
What a load.
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.