GIBSON'S PASSION (New York Sun op-ed by ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman)

Anti-Defamation League Note: This op-ed originally appeared in the New York Sun on August 4, 2003.

Discussions about Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie "The Passion" have taken a disturbing turn. Rather than focusing on an effort to find out whether Mr. Gibson is making a movie on the death of Jesus that is consistent with church teachings and free of the anti-Semitism that haunted passion dramas for centuries, the very raising of questions is now being depicted as a part of the culture wars that have overwhelmed American society in recent years.

Movie critic Michael Medved put the issue in the context of "liberal activists, who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." And Kathie Lee Gifford writes that Mr. Gibson "is being so tormented for something that he has every right to do - as an artist in a free country where he is supposed to have the freedom to express and practice his own faith."

This is a strange and unfortunate reaction to the legitimate questions that have been raised. Let us remember that the Catholic church itself and Pope John Paul II, hardly a liberal, revolutionized centuries-old teachings about Jews and Judaism related to the death of Jesus. Recognition by the Vatican of the devastating effects of church teachings about Jews - blaming Jews for the crucifixion, delegitimizing Judaism as a religion, not speaking clearly against anti-Semitism - created new Church doctrine which has transformed Catholic-Jewish relations.

Whether one is conservative or liberal, indeed whatever ones views concerning which is best for American society, the issue of portraying the death of Jesus as a Jewish crime has long been rejected.

Why have we been raising questions as to whether Mr. Gibson's movie may be returning to outmoded, dangerous views of the Jewish role in the death of Jesus?

First, because there has been a long history of the passion story i.e., the trials, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, being interpreted as holding the Jewish people responsible for killing Jesus.

According to this interpretation, both the Jews at the time of Jesus and the Jewish people for all time bear a divine curse for the sin of deicide. Throughout nearly 1,900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred and violence against Jews of Europe and America, and various forms of anti-Semitic expression. Historically, Holy Week (the week leading up to Easter Sunday) was a period when Jews were most vulnerable and when Christians perpetrated some of the worst violence against their Jewish neighbors.

In 1965, at the Second Vatican Council in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church took formal steps to correct this interpretation of the passion. In its document, Nostra Aetate, the Church officially repudiated both the deicide charge and all forms of anti-Semitism. Most Protestant churches followed suit, and since 1965 many Christians have worked cooperatively with Jews to correct anti-Semitic interpretations within Christian theology. Understanding the influential role that passion plays have exercised in the spread of anti-Semitism, the Catholic Church today urges great caution in all dramatic presentations of the passion to ensure that they not furnish any impetus for anti-Semitic attitude or behavior.

In 1988, the Catholic United States Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs issued a pamphlet, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion," which stresses that passion plays must avoid caricatures of Jews and falsely opposing Jews and Jesus. It quotes Pope John Paul II's statement that, "Catholic teaching should aim to present Jews and Judaism in an honest and objective manner, free from prejudices and without and offenses." The pamphlet concludes that correct Catholic teaching of the passion is one that portrays Jews accurately, sensitively and positively, because "the Church and the Jewish people are linked together essentially on the level of identity."

Second, a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars of the first century examined a draft of the screenplay of the film. In the words of Paula Fredrickson, one of the scholars, "the script, when we got it, shocked us." She noted that the scholars "pinpointed its historical errors and - again, since Mr. Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism - its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation."

She went on to say: "That script - and, on the evidence, the film -- presents neither a true rendition of the gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest.… The true historical framing of Mr. Gibson's script is neither early first century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the last first-century Mediterranean dispora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe."

Third, because Mr. Gibson, a "traditionalist" Catholic, has expressed strong criticisms of the modern church and is supportive of views of church policy that question or reject the many 20th-century changes, including the revolution in attitudes toward Jews beginning with Nostra Aetate in 1965.

This combination of history, an early version of the script, and reports about Mr. Gibson's views understandably raised concerns. We have not, however, reached conclusions about the film because we haven't seen it and because the producers say they have made changes. We have, instead, asked the producers for an opportunity to see a preview of the film. If our concerns would turn out to be unjustified, we will be eager to say so. If problems remain, we will be happy share our suggestions with Mr. Gibson.

In a world when anti-Semitism has undergone a frightening resurgence, one of the hopeful perspectives is the fact that the Church has changed so dramatically. We urge the makers of "The Passion" to continue this important progress that has benefited Christians and Jews.

Do you know if Foxman gets any taxpayer money? Another of Mel's critics, Marvin Hier, has received millions from both the Federal and state government.Isn't that a kick? Taxpayers subsidizing a person who bashes a Christian movie (and, I assume, says nothing when anti-Christian films are made).

The left uses our own money to attack us.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this allegation. If Foxman has such, he needs to present it.

To question aspects of Vatican II does not automatically entail rejecting the Council's rejection of the deicide charge. This allegation is equivalent to charging anyone critical of Lincoln as being supportive of slavery.

Ridiculous. Foxman ought to know better.

Taxpayers subsidizing a person who bashes a Christian movie (and, I assume, says nothing when anti-Christian films are made).

How dare that uppity Jew criticize a Christian movie!!! This is the enduring theme of your remarks. Only 15 million Jews in this world so your theory is they should shut up due to the much greater number of Catholics? Is this some kind of Catholic antiJew crusade of yours? You are making me curious. Are you in fact Catholic?

It's funny but this is how the Islamics behaved. They treated Christians and Jews as dhimmis due to their much greater weight in numbers. If you want a taste of what being minority is go carry your Christian banner waving in an Arab nation and see how you are treated. Often the Muslims were much more brutal to the Christian dhimmis than the Jews. Such as the Armenian holocuast. Early 1900s Greeks too were slaughtered by the dominant Turks.

It is this sort of anti-Catholicism--claiming the Vatican waged an anti-Semitic war against the Jews--that most Catholics find outrageous........

READ THIS BOOK and your mind will be changed. Here's a book for ya! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375406239/qid=1054685031/sr=lmlf-9/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-7423797-8152664?v=glance

Plenty of other freepers are touting it who have not seen it. I theorize it's a good movie. I object to the slamming of Jews who raise questions about it. This what's been going on. I have objections to some of what Abe Foxman does but I say he raises honest and legitimate concernes here.

The words "Passion Play" have a history in the Jewish mind.

No, my mind won't change because I've seen this kind of bigotry before and I know what the Catholic Church stands for--and it's not anti-Semitism. There has been a concerted effort over the years to destroy the reputation of Pius XII, for instance--although he was a good and just man and had done all he could to rescue Jews during the Holocaust. Were this a serious and scholarly Book, it would not carry the title it carries, designed to stir bigotry rather than to enlighten. There was no "war against the Jews" by the popes of the Catholic Church--ever. Such a contention is either paranoid or malicious.

Time to make careful distinctions. The Crucifixion is a central fact of Christianity. All Christians, including Catholics, believe Jesus died because of the sins of all mankind. Christians do not blame the Jews specifically.

There is a need for a certain delicacy in these matters that ADL does not appreciate. Instead it has waded-in theologically on a religious issue of vital importance to Christianity in an attempt to pre-empt a film it perceives might stir up ant--Semitism. It does so by casting doubt on the Gospel narratives themselves and by insisting that Jews played no role in the death of Jesus. This is offensive on a couple of fronts. First, it impugns the veracity of the Gospels which all Christians hold sacred. Second, it suggests that to depict the Crucifixion truthfully is an anti-Semitic act.

This is to start a religious fight with devout Christians in a way that can only harm mutual understanding between Jews and Christians. What's more, by starting this un-nuanced fight, the ADL and others risk undermining the very strong pro-Jewish sentiment that already exists in the Christian community. It is on the face of it outrageous to tell people of another religion what they must and must not believe and depict about their own faith. And it is also the unwisest of all tactics, especially ridiculous since Jewish critics who have actually seen the film insist it is a work of high art and not at all anti-Semitic.

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.