Posted on 11/03/2003 8:27:06 AM PST by Brian S
November 3, 2003
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
When a private viewing of Mel Gibson's ''The Passion of Christ'' was completed at a Washington hotel 10 days ago, my wife and I along with a dozen other invited guests were emotionally frozen into several minutes of silence. The question is whether public presentation of the film four months hence shall be welcomed by tumultuous demonstrations outside the theaters.
Hollywood actor Gibson, who spent more than $25 million of personal funds to produce ''The Passion,'' has finally found a distributor to begin its showing Feb. 25 -- Ash Wednesday. A campaign by some Jewish leaders to radically edit the film or, alternatively, prevent its exhibition appears to have failed. This opens the door to religious conflict if the critics turn their criticism into public protest.
That is not because of the content of ''The Passion.'' As a journalist who has actually seen what the producers call ''a rough cut'' of the movie and not just read about it, I can report it is free of the anti-Semitism that its detractors claim. The Anti-Defamation League and its allies began attacking the movie on the basis of reading a shooting script without having actually seen the film. The ADL carries a heavy burden in stirring religious strife about a piece of entertainment that, apart from its artistic value, is of deep religious significance for believing Christians.
The agitation peaked in early August when New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind told a rally: ''This film is dangerous for Jews all over the world. I am concerned that it would lead to violence against Jews.''
Hikind had not viewed the film. After an ADL representative viewed a rough cut, longtime ADL director Abraham Foxman on Aug. 11 declared the movie ''will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism.'' Foxman called on Gibson to change his film so that it would be ''free of any anti-Semitic message.''
This renews the dispute over the Jewish role in the crucifixion of Christ, the source of past Jewish persecution.
''The Passion'' depicts in two hours the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life. To watch him beaten, scourged and crucified so graphically is a shattering experience for believing Christians and surely for many non-Christians as well. It makes previous movie versions of the crucifixion look like Hollywood fluff. Gibson wants to avoid an ''R'' rating, but violence is not what bothers Foxman.
Foxman and other critics complain that the Jewish high priest Caiphas and a Jewish mob are demanding Christ's execution, but that is straight from the Gospels.
Father C. John McCloskey, director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, told me: ''If you find the Scriptures anti-Semitic, you'll find this film anti-Semitic.''
Complaints by liberal Bible scholars that ''The Passion'' is not faithful to Scripture are rejected by the Vatican. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who heads the Congregation for the Clergy, called the film ''a triumph of art and faith,'' adding: ''Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels.''
As for inciting anti-Semitism, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos contended ''the film does nothing of the sort.'' This Vatican official is denying that Gibson violates the 1965 papal document Nostra Aetate, which states: ''What happened in [Christ's] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.''
No such libel is committed by ''The Passion,'' where the mob's Jewish identity is not specified. As a Catholic convert, I was taught we are all sinners who share in guilt for the crucifixion.
At the heart of the dispute over ''The Passion'' is freedom of expression. Liberals who defended the right to exhibit Martin Scorsese's ''The Last Temptation of Christ,'' which deeply offended orthodox Christians, now demand censorship of ''The Passion of Christ.'' As a result, Abe Foxman and his allies have risked stirring religious tensions over a work of art.
Sssshhh. He's on to us.
He's on to the fact that all Catholics hate Jews and blame them for Jesus' death. Encouraging him to continue this conversation will only increase the chances that he learns more about the gigantic Church cover-up.
Fair enough. If Jews can change their vantage point on every discussion from one of enthnicity to one of religion as it suits the argument, I hereby declare that all Catholics are also subject to the Holy See, which is, in fact, a nation. Therefore any attack on Catholicism is also an attack on the Catholic "race" as it were. Wait, I have a better idea, why don't we just treat race and ethnicity as equals the way good liberals say the Constitution intended? It is much less complicated and confusing.
Your reliance on events that happend hundreds of years ago as an indication of the policies of the Catholic Church are no better than your insistence that there is Anti-Catholic sentiment in the Gospel. Even if things were interpreted that way at one time, they aren't none now, so why waste the energy?
I guess you were unaware that the Catholic Church condemned the Nazis in Holland the result was Catholics being added to the Holocaust. The Catholic Church has not had the military means to protect itself or enforce its opinions in centuries. Whenever I hear people criticizing Pious's supposed inaction, I have to laugh. Exactly what do you think he could have done differently?
BS
You ignore or dimiss as irrelevant any and all evidence presented by individuals with superior theological and historical credentials to any you have presented.
I, quite properly, ignore defenses of a position I am not attacking. I have concurred repeatedly that PIUS was a good man in a hard place. All the "superior theological and historical credentials" in the world don't butter no parsnips if you use them to try to ignore, rather than address the point.
In particular, your inability to register the fact that Jewish leaders that actually lived through the Holocoust publicly thanked Pius and expressed enormous gratitude for his aid loudly, publicly, and often, indicates an unwillingness to deal with history that varies from your point of view that borders on disorder.
PIUS XII was responding in distress to the disorder his own churches endemically anti-jewish policies, including some carried out by him regarding the accords, and the dismissal of the previous popes encyclical on the subject, for example, exacerbated. Find the Churches "we remember" document and read it, before you jam your foot into your mouth any harder.
Apparently, you are fixated on some notion of what you would have done if you were Pope; any child can engage in the game of "if I were king...". Given the circumstance of the day, which were a apparently a lot more complex in the real world then in yours, Pius did what was considered quite admirable by the people that he saved. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the founders of Isreal, who stated as much many times in public, in private, on the public record, and in their own notes and letters. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Golda..
All the testimonial dinner speeches in the world do not change history, and do not answer the charges being weighed here by me. If you want to address questions of fact, it is a sharper practice to do so with facts, not heresay evidence by avid witnesses that are not relevant to the charges being laid.
You simply repeat the same attack without condidering the weight of what the folks who lived through the Holocoust said.
Yes, that is correct, a blizzard of bulbeous heresay testimony does not outrank the actual evidence before the court.
Apparently you believe that your opinion is simply more important than theirs;
That is correct--my opinion is that we should look at the behaviors and beliefs of our institutes in setting policy over the loud clanging of gongs in the turbulent aftermath of that policy. PIUS did a good job of trying to fix the mess he and his predecessors helped create. The fact that he did a righteous job of trying to fix the mess does not absolve him of helping to create it in the first place.
if the historical record and the opinions of major players that actually lived through the awful events of the day differ from yours, well, they're, wrong you're right, that's that. Hey, it's a free country - you can have any opinion that you want, but that attitude of yours borders on foolishness. Hense the term shrill. Do you prefer adolecent?
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. In my opinion, you have not answered the charges, and you continue not to answer the charges, in ever more shrill language.
Finally, I don't care how long you have been posting..
Than I suggest you not bring it up again.
Please do not bother responding...OK? Life's too short
Having told everyone off soundly, we retire in a fluster of self-righteous hissy.
And that is supposed to deter the Voice of Jesus?
The Catholic Church has not had the military means to protect itself or enforce its opinions in centuries.
Utterly irrelevant.
Whenever I hear people criticizing Pious's supposed inaction, I have to laugh. Exactly what do you think he could have done differently?
So, are you just paying no attention? He could have honored the previous Pope's interrupted encyclical against church expressions of anti-jewish sentiment. He could have deep-sixed the Accords, and spoken out with the official voice of jesus against the ovens, any time between 1939 and xmas, 1942. He could have ex-communicated anyone working on the "jewish problem". He could have ordered the churches birth and marriage records sent off to an Abbey in Timbucktoo, rather than neatly collated and turned over to the SS. He could have refused the german army his priests. He could have excommunicated the Slovokian church heirarchy...and the list goes on and on and on.
it is, in my humble opinion, not the Pope's job to work in secret for good, and that is the defense being offered here, and it is a shabby one. He is the Vicar of Christ and Voice of Jesus, whether He occupies the Holy See or an Abbey in Timbuctoo. The defense that he was a prisoner of the Reich is pitiful. The defense that his sheep were prisoners of the Reich is pitiful in the face of interventions for other groups. Practically any other group but the jews, apparently.
No he asked you to provide a list of all of the Catholic death commanders, and he warned you not to include Hoess, because the man renounced Catholicism (note: a "lapsed Catholic" is one who stops going to Mass, not one who denies the religion and embraces evil). Your failure to do so speaks volumes for your ability to do anymore to google radical Anti-Catholic websites and state as fact the garbage you find there.
Kindly indicate where I have done so.
I hereby declare that all Catholics are also subject to the Holy See, which is, in fact, a nation. Therefore any attack on Catholicism is also an attack on the Catholic "race" as it were.
Well, interesting, but no cigar. Nationhood does not automatically endow you with ethnicity, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
Your reliance on events that happend hundreds of years ago as an indication of the policies of the Catholic Church
Rabid Anti-jewish policies, including the kidnapping of the children of forced converts to christianity went on until almost the end of the 1800s. Virulent anti-jewish tracts were still being produced by the Holy See's official publication newspapers well into the 20th century. Several of the most virulent encyclicals against jews had not been repudiated until well into the 20th century--well past the Holocaust, in fact. The "We Remember" document was not published until the end of the 20th century.
are no better than your insistence that there is Anti-Catholic sentiment in the Gospel.
Mine, and every reputable historians, including those of the Catholic church, and anyone who can read what is written, of course.
Even if things were interpreted that way at one time,
umm...so, is it or isn't it?
they aren't none now, so why waste the energy?
uh...because what happened once can happen again?
You keep using that term. Can you cite Catholic dogma calling the Vatican the "Voice of Jesus?"
Utterly irrelevant.
Completely relevant. Unless you can tell us what the Church could have done to change the course of the Holocaust (aside, of course, from the millions of lives that were save through direct action by the Chruch that is) there is absolutely no point in us having this conversation (unless this is about some special need you have for making your self look ignorant and bigotted).
So, are you just paying no attention? He could have honored the previous Pope's interrupted encyclical against church expressions of anti-jewish sentiment. He could have deep-sixed the Accords, and spoken out with the official voice of jesus against the ovens, any time between 1939 and xmas, 1942. He could have ex-communicated anyone working on the "jewish problem". He could have ordered the churches birth and marriage records sent off to an Abbey in Timbucktoo, rather than neatly collated and turned over to the SS. He could have refused the german army his priests. He could have excommunicated the Slovokian church heirarchy...and the list goes on and on and on.
The Nazis renounced Catholicism and even persecuted it where it wanted to. None of these actions would have made one bit of difference.
Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that it is ok to challenge the Church because it is not a nation. If I criticize the behavior of Isreal am I not attacking your religion? Did not God ordain a Jewish Nation? Well, interesting, but no cigar. Nationhood does not automatically endow you with ethnicity, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
False. I know black Jews and white jews. I know Jews with blond hair and blue eyes and Jews that look like Osama bin Ladin. Ethnicity is a liberal construct.
Rabid Anti-jewish policies, including the kidnapping of the children of forced converts to christianity went on until almost the end of the 1800s.
LOL. And these activities were sanctioned by the Catholic Church right? Please cite your source for this nonsense.
Anti-catholic web sites, eh? You mean like the vatican? Who do you think published the "we remember" document? Since you asked, Let's start the documentation: Let's begin with the church handing birth and death records over: here's Edith Stein, a catholic saint, on the subject:
http://www.anti-racism.supanet.com/rac/stein.htm
An answer to your question:
http://www.angelraybooks.com/books/schiff/0011sc.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/pohl/indict4.htm
http://lastexpression.northwestern.edu/essays/friedland.pdf
speeches by Hitler envoking christian sentiment in support of the jewish solution:
http://jews-for-allah.org/messianic-jews/christianhistorywithjews/speeches.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
Referring to a point about excommunication:
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Excommunication Latæ Sententiæ: This doesn't mean what you think it means. Joining a group that has a blanket excommunication against all it's members is an example of Excommunication Latæ Sententiæ. Here is a fragment of an article on excommunication in the Catholic Encyclopedia: (b) Excommunications Simply Reserved to the Pope Before enumerating those it intends to retain, the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" pronounces a first excommunication of this kind against "those who presume to absolve, without the requisite faculties and under any pretext whatsoever, from excommunications that are specially reserved". This article is directed against those who dare to absolve in bad faith or rashly; a well-founded doubt, however, and even gross ignorance may be pleaded as excuses. Then follow seventeen excommunications simply reserved, declared against the following persons: (1) "Those who either publicly or privately teach or defend propositions condemned by the Holy See under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ; likewise those who teach or maintain as lawful the practice of asking the penitent the name of his or her accomplice, a practice condemned by Benedict XIV in his Constitutions 'Suprema' (7 July, 1745), 'Ubi primum' (2 July, 1746), and 'Ad eradicandam' (28 Sept., 1746)." This article contains two distinct parts. In the first it is not question of all propositions condemned by popes or councils in terms less condemnatory (e.g. rash, offensive, etc.) than the specific stigma heretical (to defend heretical propositions being heresy itself and already declared a chief cause of excommunication, see above), but only those which the popes have specifically forbidden to be maintained under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ. These propositions are: (a) the forty-one errors of Luther condemned by Leo X, 16 May, 1520; (b) the seventy-nine theses of Michael Baius condemned 1 Oct., 1567, 29 Jan., 1579, and 16 March, 1641; ... (1) and finally the sixty-five Modernistic propositions condemned by decree of the Holy Office, 3 July, 1907, according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 19 November, 1907.
a brief history: http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/download/education/units/crystal_1.pdf
a current update: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/02/Gellately.html
Let's just take a small stroll through the archives ourselves and see what we think of the theory that the genocide of 6 million jews was deeply hidden from view:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4038/pic50.htm
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/center/posters/poster01.jpg
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/center/posters/poster03.jpg
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/center/posters/poster08.jpg
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/center/posters/poster13.jpg
http://www.bxscience.edu/organizations/holocaust/center/posters/poster14.jpg
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg00/pg5/pg00531.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg00/pg5/pg00524.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg00/pg5/pg00506.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg04/pg3/pg04336.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg41/pg8/pg41856.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg17/pg8/pg17840.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg02/pg0/pg02019.html
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg33/pg1/pg33166.html
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005680
http://www.adl.org/children_holocaust/about_nazi_law.asp
http://www.iht.com/articles/95911.html
http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/a/as_unit6/goebbels.htm
If you'd like to aquaint yourself with the shear mass of anti-jewish sentiment enshrined in overt nazi policy, this reading list might help:
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Broken_Threads/Resources/resources.html
This comes up quite a lot in birth control discussions, and evolution discussions. When the Pope produces a serious document, like an encyclical, or a Bull of Excommunication, he is speaking with the Voice of Jesus, and establishing church policy. When he speaks ex cathedra, he is not. See the Catholic Encyclopedia if you need more details.
Your link comes from a website called Christianity The Christian Jew and Religious Discrimination
(secretly it burns you up when one of yours sees the Light. That's what this is all about, isn't it. The website proports that Saint Edith Stein, my favorite saints
BTW, may have been sent to the concentration camps because the church collaborated with the Nazis and named
all members of the Clergy who were of Jewish descent. The site's reasoning? Stein was no longer a member of the Jewish community, so how could the
Nazis have known?
Are you that stupid that you take garbage like this on face value? Hello? Stein? The woman had a Jewish last name and she was public about her conversion.
Most converts in the clergy are very public about their former lives and their conversion. Saint Edith Stein was a very public figure who lectured and
published extensively. She was very outspoken about the Nazis (and for good reason). If you knew anything about the Catholic Church you might know this.
Instead you choose to embrace radicals who are filled with hate. Good for you I guess.
The Jewish Bulletin News or most any other newpaper, or detailed catholic chruch history book, or the "We Remember" document issued by the Catholic Church. Or you can google up several hundred references in a matter of seconds--it's a well-established part of history.
This is a lie. In fact the Church never speaks the "Voice of Jesus" and does not claim to do so. You fail to provide the requested proof because you realize that you are full of sh-t.
Sure, there's an ambiguous unbiased source if I ever saw one. Were you too lazy that you could not do the suggested Google search yourself and avoid looking ridiculous?
Boy, you are really getting desperate to stopper up those ears, aren't you?
"Voice of Jesus" is just a commonly used shorthand for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Here are the first three theological discussions I found that employ the phrase, you can find hundreds such, including especially in catholic sources, in five seconds on Google.
http://www.catholicherald.com/gospel/97gc/gc970626.htm
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/popeexam.htm
http://www.circleofprayer.com/catholicism8.html
http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0679768173&view=rg Or do you have another theory about the canadian conspiracy to slander the Pope?
Were you too lazy that you could not do the suggested Google search yourself and avoid looking ridiculous?
Actually, I just grabbed the first reference from the google search, which had a couple of hundred hits, which you would expect of a fairly public controversy about the canonization of a Pope who called jews "dogs" and saw nothing untoward about kidnapped jewish children.
I'm not jewish, and I fail to see what is so disreputable about this reference. Do think it untoward to be christian, or untoward to be opposed to religeous discrimination?
Nope, none of those three links gives the official position of the Catholic Church. You published the opinions of lay Catholics, not the Church. There's a big difference. If I start posting Jews for Jesus links does it follow that Judism holds Christ as the Son Of God? Of course not.
The reason I am contending this minor point is because the Church is quite clear on the fact that the only Voice of Jesus is in the Gospel. So the fact that you are so adamant serves to highlight your ignorance on matters of Catholicism.
Others have debunked your theories about the Pope Pious, including Jews who were there and who were much smarter than you are. I am only continuing this thread to point out what an ass you are. Rather than just admit you are wrong and let it go (we Catholics are big on forgivness BTW -it's our strong suit) you continue to try to fight your way out of this paper bag with your hands tied behind your back. Popes don't speak for God. He speaks for himself. To all of us.
Of course they did nothing of the sort, has the Hitler speeches I have quoted to you make perfectly clear. Hitler was born Catholic, and died catholic. He did not at any point renounce the church, nor the church him.
None of these actions would have made one bit of difference.
That is, of course, obviously not true.
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.