"Passion" fails to nail key point

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 3/5/04 | Andrew Greeley

[walden]

I am not sure what to think on this and very interested in the comments of others, especially Catholics.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Those religious conservatives who seem to delight in how much Jesus suffered are certainly correct that his sufferings were terrible. Those who say the sufferings were absolutely unique to him simply display their own ignorance of history.

You'd know all about displaying your own ignorance, wouldn't you Andrew.

As a Catholic, I point out the word conservative in his rant to you walden. While neither Gibson, nor the many people who love this movie have gone around making the controversy ideological, but the detractors on the left like this guy do. There is a major battle within the Catholic Church between liberals and conservatives, with the liberals winning big time.

Also notice the use of the word history which is one of their favorites. The pretention of the Catholic left KNOWS NO BOUNDS. They talk down, they impune, the speak knowingly of this mysterious "history" which coincendentally appears by all accounts to agree with whatever they happen to be saying at that time.

The dirty little secret about the Catholic left is that I do not believe that most of them actually have any faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. They are a 5th Column that has risen to positions of power in theological departments everywhere, as well as in the priesthood itself, my advice, just look out for those keywords; conservative, and history.

Then make fun of them ;-) They HATE that.

[Maximilian]

Greely can occasionally come up with a good point when he sticks to Gallup polls and such which is his area of expertise. Regarding Catholicism, he believes that the doctrines of the Church should be decided by a vote.

You can immediately tell how worthless this article is by the fact that he dismisses a fundamental Catholic doctrine, Christ's redemptive suffering, a doctrine that he admits was supported by the great St. Anselm whom he has no qualms about dissing, while turning to "Annie Dillard" as his source for his alternate version of the theology. So you clearly have a choice: St. Anselm and 2000 years of Catholic theology about the redemptive suffering of Christ, or Andrew Greeley and Annie Dillard and their new democratic feel-good religion.

[Conservative Iowan]

As a Catholic, I think Fr. Greeley is way off on this. Christ's died because of our sins. He wants to believe in a Jesus who was "nice," and who asked us to be nice to one another. There's nothing wrong with being nice to your neighbors, but this was not the reason Christ came into the world. But, of course, his take on the movie doesn't surprise me, being the liberal that he is. What next, a scathing review of the movie by Fr. Richard McBrien, face of AmChurch?

[opus86]

Those who say the sufferings were absolutely unique to him simply display their own ignorance of history.

So, Genius, tell me...How many sinless people were beaten and crucified while at the same time bearing our sin?! Hmmmm? I dunno...Seems pretty unique to me.

[spunkets]

"It respected the privacy..."

There's your clue. It's not God's Gospel Greeley's interested in, it's the socialist gospel of man. Greeley's obfuscating the truth to replace it with rubbish.

[xJones]

"Passion" fails to nail key point

Does anybody else find that title offensive? The key point was Jesus and, yes, He did get nailed. Bad, offensive title...

[thackney]

I am not sure what to think on this

My first thought was the author should try to sober up before writing his articles.

the church spread a veil of modest discretion over the physical suffering of Jesus. It respected the privacy of his final hours

Privacy? dragging a cross through a crowded major city for a long, slow public execution is private?

The death of Jesus was not unique in its cruelty, however horrible it may have been. Whether our modern methods of execution are any more humane might be an open question.

Crucifixion and lethal injection, yeah those are equal in treatment of the executed.

[franky]

Someone posted the following on one of the threads several weeks ago and I thought is was very appropriate to post again:

"The thing that seems to be a constant with liberals whether theologically or politically is an overwhelming arrogance and condescension toward others"

I often wonder if a "conservative" priest would get syndicated?

[OpusatFR]

"For most of the first millennium of Christian history, the church spread a veil of modest discretion over the physical suffering of Jesus."

In what universe? I remember very very clearly reading and discussing the Passion in cathecism pretty graphically. I remember being prepared for the stations of the cross by reading accounts both Gospel and mystical. The Church veil did not include attempting to whitewash what He went through to accomplish this Triumph.

Greeley is very wrong on this.

[NYer]

I am not sure what to think on this and very interested in the comments of others, especially Catholics.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Romulus]

Anselm's theory of the atonement is not considered definitive in the Catholic Church. See your Catholic Encyclopaedia.

[presidio9]

Andrew Greeley is an ass. But then, so are a lot of priests.

[TheStickman]

I've read this twice now and still don't get it.

[gcruse]

We do those things that we know we shouldn't do because we are afraid of death.

That makes no sense. 

Try this --

We do those things that we know we shouldn't do because we are afraid of death.

[HarleyD]

I’m not RCC but this is the first I’ve heard of this-certainly not from the Catholics on this board. What is this guy talking about ''original sin is our fear of our own mortality” and “God of the Hebrew Scriptures presents himself as suffering with his people”?

I always wonder about people who don’t capitalizes in published documents when referring to God in second person form.

BTW-Notice the comment about the Iraqi child shot in the back. This not so subtle message should give you a clue as to his stance on the war in Iraq.

[johnb2004]

Greeley is an agitator stuck in the 1960s. He spins the truth so he may attack Gibson. Why he remains a priest is a mystery. Like many others, he enjoys the mantle of respectability, while attacking the truth.

[eastsider]

[I]n the Middle Ages, the Western church gradually put the corpus back on the cross, though it did not present Jesus as naked, as he in fact would have been.

The corpus was put on the cross centuries before the middle ages, and it's appearance is coincident with the practice of placing the tabernacle in the center of the Church.

For the first two centuries of the Church, there were jewels on the cross, not a crucified Christ. Crucifixion was a contemporary practice at the time of the early Church, and it was a gory, horrific thing. The Church, which was trying to win acceptance, quite reasonably figured that a corpus would alienate people. The jeweled cross represented the dead and resurrected Christ, whereas people would not have come to worship Christ if they saw a gory corpus.

Enter the gnostics. By the time of Irenaeus and afterwards, the gnostics are eating away at the apostolic belief that the eternal Son of God took on flesh, as well as belief in the Eucharist. By the middle of the third century, in addition to the appearance of crucifixes, tabernacles now appear in the center of the Church. Why? Because the Gnostics denied the reality of the flesh. God simply couldn't have taken on flesh because flesh is CRAP. Therefore, if the eternal Son couldn't have taken on flesh, he couldn't have died; and if he couldn't have died, the Eucharist wasn't really the body and blood of Christ.

To convey to the faithful the reality of Christ's body, the corpus is put on the crucifix, and to convey the message that Christ's body is real food and his blood is real drink, the tabernacle moves to the center.

[walden]

That assertion by Greeley was one of the things I questioned, but I didn't know the history. Thank you!

[grellis]

I'm barely into the thread and already I have to stop and comment on this:

It respected the privacy of his final hours...

!

What kind of nonsense is this???