Posted on 03/11/2004 3:05:51 PM PST by PeoplesRep_of_LA
Rome's Jewish Community Wanted the Film Condemned
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 11, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A Vatican spokesman says the film "The Passion of the Christ" cannot be considered anti-Semitic without also regarding the Gospel the same way.
Joaquín Navarro-Valls made this statement in response to a request from Riccardo Di Segni, chief rabbi of Rome, who, after seeing the film Tuesday, asked that the Vatican condemn it officially.
The film "makes us go back to a period before the Second Vatican Council," the rabbi contended.
In statements published today by the Roman newspaper Il Messaggero, the director of the Vatican press office said: "The film is a cinematographic transcription of the Gospels. If it were anti-Semitic, the Gospels would also be so."
"It must not be forgotten that the film is full of 'positive' Jewish personages: from Jesus to Mary, from the Cyrenian to Veronica, including the moved crowd, etc.," Navarro-Valls stressed.
"If such a story were anti-Semitic, it would pose a problem for the Judeo-Christian dialogue, because it would be like saying that the Gospels are not historical," he said. "One must realize the seriousness of these affirmations."
That there have been no official statements does not mean that the Church condemns the film, Navarro-Valls said.
In fact, he said, the film "has nothing anti-Semitic about it. Otherwise, it would have been criticized" by the Pope and by his aides in the Holy See. The Holy Father saw the movie in December.
Navarro-Valls referred to a Vatican II declaration that pronounces itself against anti-Semitism.
"The declaration 'Nostra Aetate' was issued by the Catholic Church and, if it has not reacted in this case, it means that it has seen no reason to do so," he explained. "Otherwise, the hierarchy would have spoken out -- either the Vatican or the local episcopates."
Navarro-Valls revealed that some time ago, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, came to Rome to make contacts in the Vatican on the issue.
"Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, replied: 'I don't see anything in this film that can be considered as anti-Semitic,'" the Vatican spokesman continued.
"The secretary of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Father Norbert Hofmann, explained to [Foxman] that the Church has pronounced itself against anti-Semitism with the declaration 'Nostra Aetate,'" he concluded.
Well ya see, according to Frank Rich and the movie critic on MSNBC; it was all part of a grand conspiracy to force people to attack this movie in order to promote it. /sarcasm.
This is the statement of a propagandist- the most serious charge is tossed in casually as an assumption which is that the Church taught the Jews as a group were responsible for killing Jesus before Vatican II. This is a false, careless and insulting assertion.
Vatican II restated traditional theology and made no changes in it regarding group responsibility (specifically the lack of any group blame).
Joaquín Navarro-Valls is regarded as the Pope's closest advisor.
The media loves this one, for the very reason you mention.
Do you believe if this story gets wide publication that it will further put to bed the ridiculous notion that Christians being Christians is inherently anti-Semetic?
I'm not Catholic but what was so wrong about the Church prior to Vatican II? My gut reaction is that it was a move toward watering down.
See post 5, talking about that has become a strawman arguement of critics to say "anti-Semite!" without actually having to utter the accusatory word.
Unfortunately no, because the media likes to perpetuate this myth, and because the media will bury this story.
That is EXACTLY what the left is trying to do here. I just abandoned a 300+ post thread today featuring a Jew who is obsessed with "proving" that Jesus never existed. I wonder why this matters so much to him.
I don't know if I'd go that far, need I remind you of your "Boteach incedent" on the board yesterday? I understand your reservations about the movie, but its time to let it go.
However, my understanding is that Barabas was portrayed in the Gospels as being incarcerated for murder in relation to anti-Roman occupation uprisings. Wouldn?t this make him more like Nathan Hale than Charles Manson
The whole question hints to whether the crowd, and therefore "The Jews" is responsible and I reject that notion. However; Mark 15:7 - And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
The bible doesn't really get into the quality of his "cause" although violence for freedom wasn't really successful until 1776, so I would say the meaning was that it was negative.
The film was true to the Gospel in showing the chief priests encouraging them to release Barabbas;Mark 15:11 - But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
Now if someone were to interpret from that blood libel, they are going beyond the words written there.
The only thing "theologically peculiar" is your baseless assertion that that the Jews are implicitly portrayed as Satan's people.
I suppose the garden was also "Satan's garden" by your logic.
Really? Where did you see him interacting with the Jews? Satan was also in the Garden of Gethsamane. Does that mean that he was one of the disciples?
The only Jews that Satan inreracts with in this movie are Jesus and Judas. There is no precedent for him to interract with Pilot, because the Gospel says Pilot tried to spare Jesus.
I know not of what thou speaketh. Boteach??
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.