"The Passion" Isn't Anti-Semitic, Says Vatican Aide

ZENIT ^ | 2004-03-11

[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.

[churchillbuff]

You can quit worrying now, the Vatican has spoken. Thanks, I feel so much better now. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. (Rome has spoken, the case is closed).

I didn't need the pope or some clerk tell me that the Passion story is acceptable film fare. Why they waited so long is what ought to have everybody wondering. If Mel's movie can't be shown, then Palm Sunday and Good Friday - and Easter -- services must also be cancelled, because prominently they feature the same story!!!!

[churchillbuff]

You can quit worrying now, the Vatican has spoken. Thanks, I feel so much better now. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. (Rome has spoken, the case is closed).

The wiser question is, why did Britain declare war on Germany when Hitler hadn't directly threatened them? Could it be because Britain was a christian country whose people didn't like what the heathen hun was attempting on the continent? That's how churchill framed the issue. Af_vet is an historical ignoramus though (and infected with a virus of hate), so don't expect balanced analysis from him

[af_vet_1981]

af-vet is one of those hate-clouded bigots

I do not blame a religion for your behavior towards me. Since you are unable to discuss the thread without personally attacking me let this be the end of our conversation.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Unbelievable that this supposed "af-vet" bristles at being called what he clearly is - an antichristian bigot. He's really out of touch with reality.

When part of your Identity is defined as perpetually paid homage to for being a "victim" and people refuse to pucker up, there aparently is no depth that a Victocrat like af_vet will not stoop to in order to continue the kvetching, even the hypocracy of someone else's religion being slighted...by slighting someone else's religion.

[Tribune7]

The wiser question is, why did Britain declare war on Germany when Hitler hadn't directly threatened them?

Good point. Hitler had sympathy for Britain. He would have been happy to have them as allies against Russia.

[dangus]

He was an insurrectionist, which alone sounds more like "domestic terrorist" than "revolutionary." THat he was also called a robber and a murderer confirms this.

[churchillbuff]

Since you are unable to discuss the thread without personally attacking me let this be the end of our conversation.

Fine by me, since we haven't had a "conversation," because a "conversation" must go two ways. You never respond to my evidence and arguments to the effect that naziism wasn't inspired by christianity. You're a "don't confuse me with the facts" guy. Definitely not somebody worth trying to "converse" with.

[churchillbuff]

He was an insurrectionist

We're talking about Barabbas? Which Gospel calls him an insurrectionist? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like a cite.

[churchillbuff]

I do not blame a religion for your behavior towards me.

And I don't blame a religion for your bitterness towards christianity. I blame your ignorance.

[af_vet_1981]

He was an insurrectionist, which alone sounds more like "domestic terrorist" than "revolutionary." THat he was also called a robber and a murderer confirms this.

You might attach the same label and description to Judah Maccabee if you took the Greek side as you have taken the Roman.

[eastsider]

According to David Kinghoffer, writing in the LA Times, the Talmud says the same thing.

Here's a link to Klinghoffer's article. Of particular interest to me were Maimonides' remarks from the Mishneh Torah ("Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court.") and the Epistle to Yemen ("Jesus of Nazareth ... interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.")

[af_vet_1981]

Face it, the "bigot" you are looking for under every bed is staring you right back in the mirror af_vet_1981

AMEN to that! Well said and worth repeating. That the bigots who keep spamming these threads with their spittle-ejecting hatred cannot arouse any anti-semitism in us is very telling.

You lost all your religious, moral, spiritual, and intellectual authority by your personal attack on me. I don't blame any particular religion for your behavior. Please do not address me again.

[Campion]

Quite simply because millions of Jews have been murdered over the centuries, precisely due to the fact that Christians have directly blamed them for the death of your savior.

Absolute rubbish. Millions of Jews were murdered in the 1940's by a bunch of neo-pagans, who also murdered millions of Christians.

Millions of Jews were murdered in the period between 66 CE and 140 CE, by a bunch of pagans, because they refused to properly kowtow to the armies of the (pagan) Roman Caesar.

No "millions of Jews" were murdered in the intervening years, by anyone, for any reason.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

AMEN to that! Well said and worth repeating. That the bigots who keep spamming these threads with their spittle-ejecting hatred cannot arouse any anti-semitism in us is very telling.

Thanks, I am happy that I am not the only one to notice the repressed motivation.

I wouldn't even call it spittle-ejecting, he is very verbose, rather knowledgeable about history, and has a pretentious tone of superiority it correcting all these "naive" posters here.

But when you get down to the question of "Why" he posts, the answer is patently obvious; he believe in blood libel.

No, not for the Jews because of the crucifixtion, he believes in blood libel on the Christians who confidently believe in The Passion. Not just the movie, the religious ceremony on Good Friday.

You noticed too how he couldn't admit that 1. He was picking these fights. 2. That they were fighting back because he purposefully insulted their beliefs. 3. When I exposed him as the classic definition of a bigot, he got haughty and ran away to seek shelter, undoubtly to come back another to use his ploy of knowledgable "object observer". Well, we've exposed this fraud, and its up to us to remind people if and when he returns to his old deceitful, divisive tricks.