"Passion" fails to nail key point

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

[Hermann the Cherusker]

For the first two centuries of the Church, there were jewels on the cross, not a crucified Christ.

There is a graffitio from Roman times from some anti-Christian Roman soldiers making fun of a Christian among them which consists of a crude drawing of a donkey headed man (if I am recalling this correctly) nailed to a cross with the inscription of some Roman name like Gaius "worships his God". Everyone knew that Christians were worshipping a Man who had been gorily crucified as God.

[eastsider]

[eastsider]

Greeley plays as fast and loose with Anselm of Canterbury's theology as he does with history. The theological model of Christ's sacrificial redemption is found in the NT, and is based on the prescribed sacrificial offerings for sin found in the OT.

The most common theological criticism of Anselm that I've heard is that he spoke of Christ's obedience in giving up his life to the exlusion of Christ's love. I take issue with the criticism that Anselm completely ignored Christ's love, although I readily agree that his emphasis was on Christ's obedience -- an imbalance corrected about two centuries later by Aquinas. My guess is that this particular theological debate is in the back of Greeley's mind; unfortunately, its relevance his critique of Gibson's "Passion" is unclear to me.

[rcath60]

How sad...all of the so called "Catholic" priests who hate the truth. Andrew Greeley was always the "Catholic" priest of choice for Phil Donahue's show, so I never had a lot of respect for him. As far as I can see, the loudest critics of this film have been "Catholic" priests and nuns. Their's is not my faith but rather one they have been making up as they go along for over 30 years, like in the Albany Diocese.

[Tantumergo]

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

If its the dispute over how the Atonement was actually effected that seems strange to you, this is because the issue is fairly cut and dried in Protestant theology. Protestants often think (as I used to) that their stance on the atonement is also held by other Christians.

As a convert to Catholicism myself, I didn't appreciate how speculative the various theories of atonement were, and how long they had been developing. There are many more problems with the question than you might think, and the "juridical" model favoured by Protestant theologians is at best a limited analogy or figure of the reality.

Analogies can be dangerous when they are taken too far, and the following link to the Catholic Encyclopedia will give you some ideas of the strengths and weaknesses of the various analogies:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

[dangus]

He's flat out wrong. Gibson may have read the visions of that mystic (Emmerlich?) but his 120 lashes is consistent not only with her, but also with the Shroud of Turin, as has been discussed on other threads. And although he describes certain other abuses not specifically mentionned in the bible, the wounds from such abuses (dislocations, etc.) are also found on the shroud.

Of course, this means that Greeley slanders Gibson by calling him a fundamentalist. "Fundamentalist," to the northeastern-liberal Catholic ear, means "hyper-literalist Protestant who attacks essential Catholic dogma by presuming Tradition is counter-biblical." But when Gibson adds to the bible, he does so in a traditional Catholic way. (Although, I would note, he has done this in a way which has not offended Protestants, even though the ultra-traditionalists that Gibson is accused of belonging to are anti-ecumenical.)

Crucifixion is a very cruel death; I've heard it called the cruelest form of torture known to mankind. However, the slaves who revolted with Spartacus were *merely* crucified. For whatever reason, Jesus was singled out for extreme abuse. Unlike most crucifixion victims, Christ was not tied to the cross, but nailed to it. This meant that every time he pulled himself of to breathe, he was pulling his flesh apart.

Also, the (small-"t") tradition that Jesus was whipped 39 times is based on Roman common practice. The scourging was so severe, the Romans believed that 40 lashes would kill the average healthy male. So 39 lashes meant whipping the person nearly to the point of death, but allowing them to survive. Jesus was lashed 120 times, if the shroud is true evidence. That he survived is incredible.

Finally, his assertion that Jesus' death was not required for our salvation is a flat denial of the Catholic Mass, in which this prayer is said, "Dying you destroyed our death, Rising you restored our life." But he is half right; the suffering was not neccesary only to satisfy a vengeful God, one of the means by which the the salvific power of Jesus' death is revealed is that it shows Man what God is willing to do out of Love for us.

[dangus]

I was kinding of hoping it was an editor. The title is more Freudian than offensive. (As in Freudian slip.)

[dangus]

Well, to be fair, you must've been awfully young during the first millennium. :)

[dangus]

Geez, I'm such a conservative, I presumed he meant Hussein did that...
I was taught that original sin is our absence of faith. Since Satan *did* use the promise of avoiding death to entice Adam, I suppose there is a way in which he is correct. But, yeah, that is an odd assertion on his part.

[HiTech RedNeck]

''Passion'' is a glorification of sado-masochism.

Can Greeley get his [deleted] out of the equation long enough to take an objective look?

[ninenot]

That fundamental flaw that St. Paul describes as the struggle between what we want to do and what we actually do (and which St. Augustine dubbed ''original sin'') is our fear of our own mortality. We do those things that we know we shouldn't do because we are afraid of death.

This is, pure and simple, idiotic.

We do what we should NOT because Satan & his buddies find our weaknesses and exploit them to their advantage.

Greeley, who is getting on in years, is much more focused on mortality than normal people are...and evidently forgets that the serpent is still quite alive and very active.

[ninenot]

But one could also state, rightly, that 'perfect obedience IS perfect love,' right?

Particularly in the sense of piety...

[GirlShortstop]

Eastsider and Hermann, I hope you don't mind the following "compilation".  When I saw the jpg eastsider put up, it made absolutely no sense until I read up one posting.  LOL...I thought it was something a child drew and was posted in jest.  

Thank you both for the history lesson.  FReegards.

There is a graffitio from Roman times from some anti-Christian Roman soldiers making fun of a Christian among them which consists of a crude drawing of a donkey headed man (if I am recalling this correctly) nailed to a cross with the inscription of some Roman name like Gaius "worships his God"....

[xzins]

Andrew Greeley is a liberal sociologist in priest's clothing.

1. He's absolutely wrong about Gibson's movie "weakly" portraying the resurrection. In fact, it was the single best enacted resurrection scene that I have ever witnessed. It caused the hair on the back of my neck to stand on end, and I audibly exhaled, it struck me so poignantly.

2. He's also wrong about the early church "suppressing" the suffering of the cross. In fact, as they themselves went to their martyrs deaths, they glorified the cross. Any cursory reading of Polycarp and the early fathers will tell you the same.

Greeley has engaged in a "hit" piece. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would have THIS MUCH problem with "The Passion." I might imagine little things here and there, but this is over the top.

[HarleyD]

Hmmmm....I'm not sure what you mean by "absent of faith". Original sin is certainly NOT "our fear of our own mortality".

The Catholic website, which I think most would agree with states:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

I can probably (maybe, almost) accept your interpretation of "absent of faith" (I'd have to think about it.) I cannot accept the author's contention that it's a fear of our own mortality. I don't see that anywhere in the definition provided by Augustine.

[Aquinasfan]

Like many others, he enjoys the mantle of respectability, while attacking the truth.

That's what it reduces to. Not a great way to go through life.

[OpusatFR]

Oh heck! Between that and the typos today! I think it comes from fasting.... ( ;

[dangus]

Actually, Xzins is quite right, and there is also a grain of truth in what Fr. Greeley said; just enough to make the lie that much worse.

What the Catholic church* had to suppress was an OVERfascination with the physical suffering and death of Christ. Far too many people were willing to become martyrs, reasoning that a martyr's death would purify their souls and guarantee that they died in a state of grace. The Church had to assert that life was both a gift and a duty and that we should accept suffering and death when God wills to work through them, but that our primary calling is live for Christ.

(*And, yes, I do say "Catholic" even in these early days, for it was a discipline imposed on the Church by the bishops agianst heterodoxy.)

[dangus]

I meant "absence of faith." And yeah, I worded myself sorta poorly; I don't think we disagree.

[HarleyD]

What's troubling is this official in the church apparently doesn't understand some of the very basic issues that you, I and a number of Christians can agree upon. It kind of makes you what what he is teaching his "disciples".