Posted on 02/28/2004 6:34:54 PM PST by ultima ratio
Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary
Gerald Warner
"ECCE homo." The words of Pontius Pilate - "Behold the man" - with which he exhibited Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, to the hostile crowd have inspired many devout works of art down the centuries. Yet only now has the cinema, the popular art form of our time, the challenge of portraying what Christians acknowledge to be the defining moment of human history, with the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ.
Since it is not due for release in this country until March 26, it would not be possible to offer a conventional critique of this production - the actors’ performances, quality of direction, photography and all the other elements by which a film is normally assessed. The need to suspend judgment on such technicalities, however, should not inhibit believers from taking a stand on the issues with which the enemies of the faith are assailing Gibson and - by extension - the entire Christian canon.
The first point of controversy that must be addressed is the distraction - for that is what it is - of the claim that the film is anti-Semitic. There could be no better way of dismissing this canard than by invoking responsible Jewish opinion, as voiced by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, an American organisation that exists to build bridges between Jewish and Christian communities. Rabbi Lapin has excoriated the activists persecuting Gibson with a robustness that few Gentiles would have dared to exhibit.
Two weeks ago, Lapin predicted that the film "will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made" and that "the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them". Pity no Catholic bishop has gone on record in equally enthusiastic vein. Lapin went on to denounce "Jewish organisations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism". With heroic objectivity, he also condemned the offence given to Christians because "Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian scripture ‘really means’".
The rabbi’s remarks follow upon an even more devastating broadside he delivered five months ago, on the same theme, when he insisted that protests against Gibson’s film "lack moral legitimacy". He cited the exhibition of blasphemous art shown in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum, when Arnold Lehman was director, including a Madonna smeared with elephant dung. He also pointed out, with a directness that no Christian could contemplate, that Martin Scorsese’s blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by Universal Pictures, run by Lew Wasserman, and posed the question "why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?"
Rabbi Lapin’s moral integrity and plain speaking have done more for Christian-Jewish relations than a thousand futile ecumenical symposia and weasel-worded scriptural trade-offs brokered by pressure groups and Vatican appeaseniks. It seems reasonable to hope that he speaks for a majority of his co-religionists, rather than the strident protesters. That said, the most vitriolic enemies of the film and its message are not Jews: they are drawn from the forces of militant secularism and the Fifth Column within the Catholic Church.
For, make no mistake, this is an intensely Catholic film. Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who rejects the humbug and chaos of the Second Vatican Catastrophe - as do an increasing number of the disillusioned survivors stumbling around in the ruins of the once-mighty Roman Catholic Church. The faithful translation on to film of the scriptural narrative of Christ’s passion and resurrection would, 50 years ago, have presented Catholics with an image that was totally familiar. Bishop Joseph Devine, bishop of Motherwell, is one of the few in Britain to have seen the film and has described it as "stunningly successful... a profoundly religious film."
Yet, today, the Easter People, the dancers in sanctuaries, those who claim They Are Church and all the assorted Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men who have converted Catholicism into a crankfest regard the Passion with as much alienation as any atheist.
Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.
You will find little dissent from those propositions among the smirking, blue-rinse nuns of the post-Conciliar Church, or their ecumaniac male counterparts. To them, the crack of the centurion’s whip and the thud of the hammer on nails are distant, alien sounds - a disturbing echo of Holy Week long ago, of Gregorian plainsong, of ferias in Seville. In a word - ecumenically unhelpful; best washed away by a few more cups of tea at Scottish Churches House.
The militantly secular world is also keenly alert to the challenge of the Passion. In responding to Gibson’s initiative, no double-standard is too blatant, no inversion of truth too shameless. Critics are queuing up to denounce "pornographic violence" (the now favourite weasel phrase) in the literal portrayal of the crucifixion.
These are the self-same people who acclaimed every sadistic and pornographic obscenity with which Hollywood has poisoned the world over the past three decades, who vigorously denounced "censorship" and promoted the "pushing of boundaries". Now, suddenly, they are alarmed about pornographic violence.
Yet, amid all the sound and fury, the most contemptible phenomenon is the trahison des clercs. The Catholic Church will not embrace this film, despite the Pope’s verdict on it ("It is as it was!"), because it expresses a faith it now finds embarrassing. The Passion was made with as much religious dedication as the crafting of an Orthodox icon. The Tridentine Mass was celebrated on the set every morning and there was at least one conversion to Catholicism during the making of the film. Small wonder that modernist Roman theologians are galled by the fact that Tradition has produced the most triumphant artistic articulation of faith and that evangelical Protestants are flocking to experience it.
The Mass, as the bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, was the perfect complement to this artistic tribute to God. At the elevation of the host, the Catholic believer knows - although he can scarcely comprehend the fact - that he is as close to Christ as were Our Lady and St John at the foot of the cross. That is the cosmic drama of redemption that is re-enacted on the altar: "Behold the man".
I would say he is not really someone to give sincere time to. It seems that he would bite your head off if he could, preserving you from "error". He also has the rhetoric style of the National Democrat Party. His now familiar refrain is "that is a lie".
Pure B.S. and you know it.
Peter, the first Pope, denied Christ three time before the cock crowed.
The Vatican now denies Pope John Paul II gave any public endorsement of the "The Passion of The Christ" movie. If he said, "It is as it was"; it was not for public knowledge.
Yet on January 26th, the AP reported that Pope John Paul II "presided Sunday over a performance of break-dancers who leaped, flipped and spun their bodies to beats from a tinny boom box." The pontiff remarked that artistic talent is a gift from God" and said to the break-dancers, "For this creative hard work, I bless you from my heart."
But earlier, on January 19th, CNS reported that Monsignor Dziwisz stated, "I said the Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone," he said. "He does not make judgements of this kind; he leaves that to others, to experts."
So I guess the Holy Father is and expert on break-dancing; but not on the Passion of Christ.
I read it when it first came out but it was so shocking that I could not bear to try to understand how dire the picture actually was. I had a difficult job,three boys I was raising alone,major injuries sustained in an automobile accident and a personal life that was troubled so it didn't really penetrate,I think the Holy Ghost was protecting me.
Anyhow,picking it up a couple weeks ago and rereading it,confirmed everything I had observed and experienced and concluded over the 26 years.The Church in the English speaking countries is in serious trouble because it was planned that way and Paul had had 16 years to to sow the seeds in soil that had been fertilized since at least 1917. He quite possibly saw the error late in his papacy but by then things had gotten so out of hand he was unable to act.
I will just give you one line which follows a description of what the conclave that selected John Paul I as well as JOhn Paul II was facing due to the wager Paul had made about the world as it would be in the future. Paul made the decision to tailor a church that would attract the "new man",his appointments and actions were in keeping with the plan or plot.After this description he states new Pope will face "THE BREAK WITH THE LONG PAST IS ALREADY COMPLETED,AND HE WILL KNOW IT".In other words Pope John Paul II has had to try to turn the Church around in an environment that was riddled with land mines planted all over the place.
I really get furious with the constant sniping from the Modernists/Progressives as well as those on the other side,please read the book.If you read it and find reason to disagree with me about John Paul II after reading it,I will be very surprised. I think you will see that he has been a great Pope and tried against tremendous odds to give us back our Church and I think he will succeed in our lifetimes.
IS THE SSPX SCHISMATIC?
The Society is not regarded as schismatic by some of the highest prelates in the Vatican. As proof the letter from the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in the United States in the name of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1), Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a letter from Cardinal Edward Cassidy (2), President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
(1) In Hawaii in May 1991 Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate some followers of the Society of St.Pius X for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity". The excommunication was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993.
"From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decreee, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity" (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington DC)
(2) Extract from a reply written on May 3,1994 by Cardinal Edward Casssidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,to an inquiry about the status of the Society of St.Pius X
"... Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994) I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated.... I hope this answers your letter satisfactorily."
I don't think that you should continue to post this statement as a defense of your position. It is self-incriminating. You have opted for the SSPX, not "for the sake of devotion", but as you have freely admitted, because of the Vatican's treatment of the FSSP's leadership. Your reasons are political, not devotional, because the indult is available to you.
Your consistent disparaging of the actions and judgement of the Holy Roman Pontiff can only lead the most casual and objective reader of your posts to conclude that you have no desire to be in communion with this pope, except on your own terms. But do not fear; Christ's mercy will exceed the judgement of the most casual and objective reader.
It is not within your juristiction to determine who is inside or outside the Catholic church. I don't believe any of the three you have addressed have been excommunicated, either explicity or implicity.
Shield thy sword.
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.