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.
What is your basis for this? I think it gets back to the bizarre Jewish tendency to celebrate persecution as part of the religion.
Are you saying that exposure to Christianity is a bad thing because it might lead to antisemitism? It sure sounds like you are.
Yeah yeah, I read your link. What it doesn't show is that these things were going on in Europe during the 1800s. (Russia is not really Europe) If the word became associated with that, it must have been unique. More over, genocide in Europe against an ethnic or religious minority is hardly isolated.
Its very easy to look at your point in all of these incedents of Jewish Genocide is coming back to my original point, hinting that the practice of Christianity could lead to Jewish genocide. If that is not your point, you need to be more upfront in distancing yourself from it.
Tell you what hotshot, my family fled that same area 40 years after that the date you are telling me about. My Grandpa got out--the rest of his family was slaughtered by the Soviets. There aren't even reliable numbers for the many millions of my people killed in Red October.You don't see me wearing that on my sleave, attacking anyone speaking Russian in my neighborhood because they should be "ashamed at what happened in the past." It absolutely never comes up til right now, yet it affects my life as much as anything you listed on your page of atrocities. My problem is that I'm not holding it as a grudge against people today, I get the feeling you are.
In the movie, Satan was seen walking upon the Earth and through a mob in a city.
Since the city was Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago, Caipha's rent-a-mob (Caipha's was depicted giving out money to pay for his mob), Jesus' followers, the Pharisees, the Apostles, Mary, Caiphas, the children, the merchants, the beggars and even Jesus himself were all Jews.
A mob in 1st Century Jerusalem would be a Jewish mob. An adoring crowd in 1st Century Jerusalem would be a Jewish adoring crowd. A crowd milling about doing absolutely nothing in 1st Century Jerusalem would be a Jewish crowd milling about doing absolutely nothing.
There weren't any Celts, Koreans, Incas, Eskimos, Nepalese or Norwegians in 1st Century Jerusalem.
If we claim that portraying Satan among Jewish people in 1st Century Jerusalem in "The Passion" implicitly "portrays the Jews as Satan's people", then we must also claim that "Damned Yankees" and the book it was based on "implicitly portrays Americans in Washington, D.C. who root against the New York Yankees as Satan's people".
Only 300k? No big deal then, eh? What are the numbers of those who converted rather than face certain torture and death?
Historically, it has usually been the uneducated rural peasants who have been responsible for the dirty work.
Christianity has never been a problem... Churchianity, on the other hand, has...
I was brought up Lutheran and when the Vatican II reforms went through all I was aware of was the change on meatless Fridays. However, before then I did attend one Catholic mass (our Sunday school class was going to other churches so we could (in effect) discuss what they were doing wrong.) I was, however, very impressed by the Latin mass.
Later I dated a couple of girls who were Catholic and I went to some post Vatican II masses which just seemed sort of plain relative to what I remembered of the earlier experience.
Read my 82, victimhood is not an exclusively Jewish situation, however in this controversy I get the impression that its almost Shadenfreuden for many Jews, particuarly liberal ones, to feel permanently victimized. Its almost become a part of their identity.
They are demanding a toll, a gratiutity, and Gibson flatly declined to give Abe Foxman a tip during preproduction. Well watch out because HERE COME THE TEARS. Now he's got the whole community outraged over-quite frankly nothing. There is no person in the world that can convince me that any whiner about this movie actually saw a scenerio of of pogroms sprouting up over America.
And if they do anywhere, who's gonna be the first to condemn it? You and me and all the other Christians. I'm so sick of this "kvetching" I could scream. Gotta let it go...forgive those who trespass against us...
This is a half-truth. Satan was also portrayed as being near the Romans who were scourging Jesus. Satan was even portrayed as being near Jesus! Are you saying that Mel Gibson believes Jesus to be Satanic?
If not, your "argument" falls apart.
Well, Ohioan, according to the May 11, 2003 issue of the (New York) Daily News, Abe Foxman's salary is $405,609 per year.
$405,609 per year.
Would you be willing to settle for Peace and Understanding and thereby "Kum-Bah-Ya" yourself out of such a paycheck? :-)
This is the New American Bible translation.
And so, of course, it's wrong. The original word is stasiastos, from stasis. It covers several shades of meaning, from "disputer" (mild) to "insurrectionist" (heavy - and, of course, the KJV translation). It cannot reasonably be stretched to mean "revolutionary".
WELL, DUH.
They couldn't wait much longer to come out with this statement --- or else they'd have to cancel Palm Sunday Mass worldwide - since the Passion story is read responsively on that Sunday in every Catholic parish around the globe (as well as in Anglican and, I believe, Lutheran churches). Does that mean that Foxman and ADL are insisting that Palm Sunday should be cancelled -- and maybe Easter too?
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.