Pope never commented on Gibson's 'Passion' film, says papal secretary

POPE-PASSION Jan-19-2004 (360 words) xxxi
Pope never commented on Gibson's 'Passion' film, says papal secretary

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope John Paul II never said "It is as it was" after watching Mel Gibson's film on the passion of Jesus, said the pope's longtime personal secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz.

"The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film," the archbishop told Catholic News Service Jan. 18.

Archbishop Dziwisz watched the film in the pope's apartment with Pope John Paul and with the pope's second secretary in early December.

The film, "The Passion of the Christ," is Gibson's interpretation of the last 12 hours of Christ's life and is set for release in the United States Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday.

The alleged papal quote has appeared in hundreds of newspapers around the world as an unequivocal endorsement of Gibson's controversial film even though papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls refused to confirm the pope said it.

The film drew widespread attention even before it was finished, particularly because of concerns over how it would portray the Jews and its potential for promoting anti-Semitism.

The co-producer of the film, Steve McEveety, was in Rome in early December to host private screenings of a rough cut of the film for Vatican and other Catholic officials.

After the pope and Archbishop Dziwisz watched the film, the archbishop met with McEveety and with Jan Michelini, an assistant director of the film.

According to published reports, McEveety and Michelini said Archbishop Dziwisz told them the pope reacted positively to the film and said, "It is as it was."

But, Archbishop Dziwisz told CNS, "That is not true."

"I said clearly to McEveety and Michelini that the Holy Father made no declaration," the archbishop said.

"I said the Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone," he said. "He does not make judgments on art of this kind; he leaves that to others, to experts."

"Clearly, the Holy Father made no judgment of the film," he said.

News stories containing the alleged papal quote have been posted on the official Web site of the film: www.thepassionofthechrist.com.

END

Says Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos:

Gaspari: I understand that you have already seen Mel Gibson’s new film, The Passion. What were your impressions?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: As I watched this yet unfinished version of the film, I experienced moments of profound spiritual intimacy with Jesus Christ. It is a film that leads the viewer into prayer and reflection, into heartfelt contemplation. In fact, as I told Mr. Gibson after the screening, I would gladly trade some of the homilies that I have given about the passion of Christ for even a few of the scenes of his film.

Antonio Gaspari: So many films have already been made about the life of Jesus Christ. What is the value of this one?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos:With this film, Mr Gibson has achieved something truly extraordinary. He has used the marvelous technology available through our modern means of communication to make the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ come alive for the people of our times. What is more, the film as a work of art – the performances, the dazzling cinematography, the sounds, lighting, and pacing– is just as powerful as the message it contains.

Antonio Gaspari: Even six months before the expected release date “The Passion” has stirred up a great deal of controversy. Do you have any reservations in recommending the film?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos:I would like all our Catholic priests throughout the world to see this film. I hope all Christians will be able to see it, and all people everywhere.

Antonio Gaspari: The film is reported to contain graphic violence. Won’t this provoke anger and hatred among viewers?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos:In my opinion, one of the great achievements of this film is to have shown so effectively both the horror of sin and selfishness, and the redeeming power of love. Seeing this film provokes love and compassion. It makes the viewer want to love more, to forgive, to be good and strong no matter what, just as Christ did even in the face of such terrible suffering. The viewer is drawn into a powerful experience of God’s strong yet gentle love, of his overflowing mercy. It is my belief that if we could understand what Jesus Christ did for us and we could follow his example of love and forgiveness, there would not be hatred or violence in the world. This film will help to make that possible.

Antonio Gaspari: As Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy your responsibilities include overseeing the catechesis of Catholics worldwide. Does this film contribute positively to your work?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos:This film is a triumph of art and faith. It will be a tool for explaining the person and message of Christ. I am confident that it will change for the better everyone who sees it, both Christians and non-Christians alike. It will bring people closer to God, and closer to one another.

Antonio Gaspari: Is Gibson’s version of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ faithful to the Gospel accounts?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos:Mr. Gibson has had to make many artistic choices in the way he portrays the characters and the events involved in the Passion, and he has complemented the Gospel narrative with the insights and reflections made by saints and mystics through the centuries. Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those Biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels, as understood by the Church.

Antonio Gaspari: Some have expressed fear that Gibson’s vivid depiction of the death of Christ could spark anti-semitism. Is there any truth to this?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos:Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole race of people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort. It draws out from the historical objectivity of the Gospel narratives sentiments of forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. It captures the subtleties and the horror of sin, as well as the gentle power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations against one group. This film expressed the exact opposite, that learning from the example of Christ, there should never be any more violence against any other human being.

And Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis Magazine:

By Deal Hudson
Special to the Herald
(From the issue of 8/7/03)

I've just witnessed the rebirth of great Catholic art in our time. A few days ago I was fortunate to be part of a small group of journalists, pundits, and Christian leaders in Washington, D.C., who were invited to an early screening of Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion."

The film focuses on the last few hours in the life of Christ, and the result is truly stunning. Gibson and his film company, Icon Productions, have come under heavy fire lately from the Anti-Defamation League and a group of professors from — where else — Boston College, who say that the film is anti-Semitic and will encourage violence against Jews.

But these accusations are based on an early script of the movie that wasn't even filmed, one that was stolen without Icon's permission. You can tell from their loaded questions and criticisms that these people haven't seen the movie. Yet their protests have already made it to all the papers, crippling the film before it even leaves the starting gate (it isn't slated for release until Ash Wednesday of next year).

So what's the real story behind this controversial new film?

One of the qualifications for viewing the movie at the screening was signing a confidentiality agreement, but I've been authorized to tell you the following:

From an aesthetic standpoint, the film is beautiful. Its visual narrative carries traces of the long tradition of Christian art, from the very earliest Christian styles and medieval iconography up to pre-Raphaelite images. As for the casting, it's fabulous: The faces of the actors carry the movie. Only two are even moderately well-known stars, Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene. Both are powerful in their roles, but the face of Maia Morgenstern, playing the role of Mary, the mother of God, will stay with you the rest of your life. She makes you forget you're watching a movie.

The music — a combination of Middle-Eastern sounds and Hebrew chanting — is well-chosen and adds to the visual drama unfolding before you. Composed by Jack Lenz, the music becomes part of the dialogue itself.

Many people were concerned that the movie was filmed entirely in Aramaic and Latin, one of Gibson's appeals to historical accuracy (there are English subtitles). Instead of being a hindrance, though, it actually enhances the film. Within the first 10 minutes, you become accustomed to the sounds, and then the realization hits you: You're hearing the words of Jesus, Pilate, and his disciples as they were originally spoken. There aren't any hackneyed performances of the English lines, so there's a freshness to the words that we often miss. And Aramaic is a guttural language, one that punctuates the drama of the film perfectly.

Gibson's "Passion" is also profoundly Catholic. The Marian imagery and Eucharistic themes permeate the entire movie. My wife Theresa and I came away from the film with a sense that our faith had been revitalized.

Make no mistake: this movie will convert and uplift hearts. Once you've seen it, you'll never again take for granted the words: "He suffered, died, and was buried."

The movie is both beautiful and brutal, and frankly, it isn't easy to watch in places (especially the scourging scene). You want to turn away, but then you see that Mary, His mother, is watching... and so you continue to watch as well.

And what about all the alleged anti-Semitism? I didn't see any kind of anti-Jewish bias in the film. If anything, it was the unspeakable brutality of the Roman soldiers that enraged me. Of course, that doesn't make me hate modern-day Italians. Nor do I hate the French when I see a film about the brutality of the French Revolution. Simply put, there's no reason to be concerned that this movie will spark any sort of anti-Jewish campaign.

"The Passion" is a great work of art. Mel Gibson has given a beautiful gift to the Church and to God.

Hudson is editor and publisher of Crisis magazine.

And David Horowitz, political commentator:

"Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, which is about the last twelve hours of Christ's life is the object of campaign villification and book burning by a committee of Christians and Jews who want to shut it down before it is shown, or edit it to their own politically (or religiously) correct standards. Paula Fredriksen is a spokesman for this committee. The New Republic has shamed itself by printing her ill-informed and bigoted attack on the film.

"Unlike Fredriksen and others who want to destroy film before they have seen it, I have. It is not an attempt to portray the historical Jesus -- which is the subject of Fredriksen's entire screed -- nor could it be. By Fredriksen's own account there is no evidentiary basis for such a portrait and if anyone tried to create one it would be eviscerated by the same Savanarolas, precisely because no one can know what the truth is.

"Gibson's film is an artistic vision and must be judged that way. Like others who have seen the film, I am sworn to keep details confidential so that it gets its chance when the distributors present it to the viewing public next Easter. However, I will say this: It is an awesome artifact, an overpowering work. I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is extremely painful to watch and yet the violence is never gratuitous. You never feel like you want to take your eyes off the screen. It is a wracking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience as art can get.

"It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Fredericksen whose only familiarity with The Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. But yes the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?).

"But all this is to miss the point. This is a Christian parable. The cruelty, intolerance and lack of compassion of human beings is limitless -- and we who have lived through the Twentieth Century know this all too well. The moral of this Christian story -- of Mel Gibson's film -- is that we all killed Jesus -- Jew and Gentile alike -- and tortured him, and we do so every day. But if you believe the vision that Gibson has rendered so searingly and so well, Jesus forgives us for that very act. Whosoever will give up cruelty and love his brother will enter paradise. That is the message that Gibson has framed in his extraordinary work. The effort to shut down his film before it opens is just another station of the cross."

And Michael Novak, Catholic Theologian:
____________________________________________________________
THE NICENE CREED, recited by the world's more than two billion Christians every Sunday, declares that Jesus Christ "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried."

More than anything else, these ten words are the theme of "The Passion," Mel Gibson's new movie. Although not scheduled to be released to theaters until Ash Wednesday, "The Passion" generated this spring more discussion than any film in recent memory: endless op-eds, press releases, debates, and denunciations--all about a movie, in Aramaic and Latin, that none of the commentators had seen.

Perhaps in response to all this publicity, both negative and positive, Gibson released a trailer for "The Passion" on July 14. And then, on July 21, he brought a rough cut of the film (with English subtitles) to Washington for a few commentators and interested writers to see.

It is the most powerful movie I have ever seen. In the days since watching that rough cut, I have not been able to get the film out of my mind. Although I have read many books on the death of Jesus, and heard countless sermons dwelling on its details, I would never have believed a human being could suffer as much as Gibson's Christ does. Seen through the perspective of the mother of Jesus, as this film allows the viewer to do, the suffering is doubly painful--for with her, we watch the unbearable scourging, gustily delivered by the Romans at Pilate's orders nearly to the point of death. The pillar to which Jesus is
chained is less than waist-high, so that his back is bent while he must keep himself on his feet. When he is dragged away, blood lies pooled and splattered on the white marble floor. The soldiers' laughter echoes again at the moment of the awful downward push when he is crowned with thorns. And then there are the thundering falls of the scourged Christ upon his flailed and bleeding back, under the impossible weight of the cross.

There are, in a sense, only five historical accounts of the Passion: in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and, in bare but vivid outline, in the letters of St. Paul. Paul's accounts are by some thirty years the earliest and represent in large strokes the settled beliefs of the first generation of Christians. Down the centuries, the narrative of Christ's death and its meaning have remained much the same.

The fuller accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John supplement each other, often overlapping and sometimes contradicting one another on the sort of contingent details that eyewitnesses (or their note-takers) often report differently. But all the Christian accounts agree that Jesus Christ suffered and died for the sins of all human beings of all time, under the command of the Roman consul in Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate.

Jewish accounts concur that Jesus was a Jew who suffered and died under the Roman authorities. His claims for himself seemed to Jewish authorities then (and since) to be blasphemous--for Christ clearly announced that he owned an authority higher than the high priests and the rabbis', said forthrightly that he was greater than Solomon, and put himself on a higher plane than Moses. He went even further, daring to call God his father.

A Catholic deacon:

________________________________________________________

by Deacon Keith A. Fournier - The Catholic Ex Date Added: January 20, 2004 3:17 pm

A Deacon's Comments on Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ

January 16, 2004

The Passion evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same...

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film The Passion, but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life-long, deeply-held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

An Encounter

I arrived at the private viewing for The Passion held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the Cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, The Passion evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

Unanimous Praise

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic?'" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) The Passion it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus." I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

The Right to Hear the Truth

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the gospel narratives to which The Passion is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message, but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, The Passion.

It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about The Passion. You will be as well. Don't miss it!

Keith A Fournier is a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He holds degrees in Philosophy, theology and law. He has been a champion of religious liberty and appeared as co-counsel in major cases at the United States Supreme Court. He is the author of seven books and, along with his law practice, serves as the president of both the "Your Catholic Voice Foundation" and "Common Good".

Still another: __________________________________________________________ An Art Historian's View ROME, DEC. 10, 2003 (Zenit.org ).- For a fortunate few of us Rome dwellers, the most exciting event of this week was the advance screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." In a small basement cinema of Rome's Prati district, producer Steve McEveety tersely introduced the film, explaining that we would be seeing a mere rough cut of the newest Gibson opus.From the stream of articles and testimonies this movie has spawned, it seems that most people who have previewed the film didn't know what to expect. I did. I am a diehard Mel Gibson fan, and I expected the best. He didn't let me down. What did surprise me was that the person I always associated with the entertainment side of my life crossed over into my professional world. As a Renaissance art historian, I analyze art on chapel walls, above altars or in museums. Though film is arguably the world's greatest art medium, I generally turn off these faculties on entering the movie theater, as they are rarely called upon for today's films. In the case of "The Passion," every scene, every frame, is richly crafted to draw the viewer deeper and deeper into the story. A masterpiece of religious art -- of the most powerful sort -- "The Passion" involves the viewer to the point that he or she becomes part of the story. Gibson's filming stands in the High Renaissance tradition. The figures fill the screen, they loom over us, threatening to enter our space. When Christ falls for the last time on the road to Calvary, he turns towards us, the viewers, and slowly tumbles, arms outstretched, right over us. The flashback to Christ and Peter produces a similar effect. The camera is placed to capture the face of Christ in profile, while Peter faces us full on. We are seated to the right of Christ, witnessing Peter's solemn promises to follow Jesus even to death. Then the camera pans around so that Christ looks straight at us as he tells Peter that before the night is over he will have denied him three times. From bystander to protagonist in the blink of an eye. The most compelling interplay between viewer and film occurs, however, during Gibson's representation of Michelangelo's Pietà. Mary holds her Son in the exact same manner, one hand cradling his body and the other hand open toward the viewer. The variation comes in that while Michelangelo's Mary gazes solemnly down at her Son, Gibson's Mary looks straight out at us. The movie draws to a close provoking a full and conscious acknowledgment of whom this suffering has been for. Now it is one thing to fashion a work of art, and another thing altogether to get people to look at it. Every semester I host a crop of visiting college students, here to get a dusting in art history, eager to view the beauties of Rome. Yet on entering the Sistine Chapel they typically look up for just a moment or two and then turn to me for an explanation. Contemporary society is not used to having to look at something long enough to let it sink in. Mel Gibson gets around this in part through the use of Aramaic and Latin in the film. He offers some subtitles, but not many, and the viewer finds himself searching the faces on the screen for responses, for personal interaction to try to understand visually what he cannot grasp otherwise. The Caravaggesque play of light and dark across Pilate's tortured face as he struggles to understand "what is Truth," reveals more than the dialogue itself. In some cases, translation proves unnecessary. The scoffing and jeering of the brutal soldiers becomes feral barking, underscoring the meaninglessness of the violence it accompanies. During my formative teen years, Mel Gibson accompanied me with his portrayals of reluctant heroes and good-hearted rebels. His best characters, such as Mad Max or Guy Hamilton in "The Year of Living Dangerously," always walked a fine line between what was right and what was comfortable or convenient. When the character finally had to wrench himself toward selfless good, the effort was always visible, almost painful. Concealed in unlikely shells, the hero emerges at the time of necessity. In "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson has made the ultimate hero movie. In the opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, we see Jesus suffering with the foreknowledge of his imminent passion, pleading to be spared this task. The eerie figure of Satan, who would be distressingly at home in an MTV video, softly tempts and dissuades. "No man can bear this burden," he whispers while Jesus lies prostrate, seemingly helpless on the ground. But Jesus lifts himself up, and with a decisive crack that makes the audience jump, he crushes the head of the serpent Satan has sent to tempt him. Another classically heroic Gibson moment finds Christ on his knees, crippled under the weight of the cross. His mother runs to comfort him, whereupon he smiles bravely and promises, "See Mother, I make all things new." The camera follows him up as he again shoulders the cross and struggles forward with renewed vigor. Spurious charges of anti-Semitism have upstaged more important debate regarding the religious and artistic value of this film. The intensity with which Gibson forces us to think about Christ's passion highlights the power of cinema as an art medium, as well as a tool for evangelization. Personally, perhaps the sweetest note on seeing this movie was that my adolescent hero has become a hero in my adult life, showing courage and vision in professing his belief in Christ's salvific sacrifice against formidable odds. Hats off to Mel. * * * Elizabeth Lev teaches Christian art and architecture at Duquesne University's Rome campus. She can be reached at lizlev@libero.it. ZE03121024

"It does nothing. Go to the theater and see the movie instead of bitching about the Vatican."

I fully intend to see the movie. However to suggest that the contradictory messages coming out of the Vatican impugns somebody's credibility is hardly "bitching".

Somebody in Rome is spinning or lying to suit a particular agenda, and the credibility of the whole ediface is indeed damaged when you necessarily get the following confused reports in the press:

VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul's spokesman has denied the pontiff has endorsed Mel Gibson's controversial film about Jesus, despite contrary claims by the film's producers. As Gibson, who personally financed the $25 million to make "The Passion of Christ," gears up to release the film on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, supporters are touting the pope's endorsement, according to Tuesday's New York Daily News.

The pope's office challenges the claims of support of the film, which depicts Jesus' torturous death and which has been called anti-Semitic by some Jews.

"The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film," said Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Pope's longtime personal secretary. "He does not make judgments on art of this kind; he leaves that to others, to experts."

Alan Nierob, a spokesman for the producers, said they have an e-mail from Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Vatican spokesman, supporting their claim that the pope approved of the film.

"I saw it in writing myself," Nierob said. "He confirmed that statement, 'It is as it was.'"

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.

You both are barking at the wrong tree.

If the most recent and confirmed report from the Vatican is, "The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film," then you should've accepted it as the "final answer." But if you dig constantly through old unconfirmed rumors, then you end up bitching, foaming and barking at the wrong tree.

I gave you a timeline in my post #7. I certainly hope you both passed the eight grade and can add and subtract days of the month. This timeline shows that some media sources are interested in disseminating lies. The Catholic News Service wanted to know if the Holy Father said anything about the film - as Peggy reported in WSJ on December 17, so they asked him and on December 24, 2003, the CNS reported, "Vatican officials say pope didn't comment after viewing 'The Passion'". The same agency, CNS, said much later, on January 16, that the Vatican issued conflicting reports and isn't telling the truth. Fathom this; this last report by CNS is based on comparison of Peggy’s and their very own report from December 24!!! So much for the integrity of "catholic" media.

Somebody isn't telling the truth, I tell you. Now take your calculators, pencils and do the math ;)

==================
A brotherly word to ultima,
It's really pathetic, nauseating and heretical of you to claim to know the best what the Holy Father should do and say.

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.