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.
Indeed it is. Why does your one quote from Hitler trump my 20? Nobody tests me at the door to my church to see if I have the moral fiber to be permitted inside. I know many catholics who whore, curse, verbally abuse the church, and beat their wives. It doesn't deter them from being considered catholic, or considering themselves catholic, and the church makes no move to strip them of their beads. Show me the official papers making Hitler, a baptised catholic, not a catholic.
Which means it can be re-defined again, doesn't it? Particularly if you happen to be infalllible.
This is, of course, a total mis-statement of the questions at issue, and a total distraction. Kindly answer the question concerning papal infallibility and the anabaptists.
LOL.
?
You posted the link, not me. You offered up this garbage as evidence that your biggotry is politically correct. Defend it.
Of course it can. Man is fallible. God redirects him on His own schedule. Your pathalogical need to reach hundreds of years into the past to support your hatred is a clear indication that your theories are nothing but ugly lies.
More nonsense. Religion is a contract between an individual and God. I have been a Catholic since Baptism, but no papers exist to document it. Does this mean that I am not a Catholic? There are no lawyers in religion dumbass.
Why, because I reject a fool and her philosophy? Or because I reject your labeling of Novak.
Than I presume you admit that you have no substantive evidence to offer as to Hitler's catholocism any stronger than the quote you just offered up, and which I trumped with 20 other quotes, and which is not particularly signed onto by historians, other than church defenders.
I have been a Catholic since Baptism, but no papers exist to document it.
I see. You don't have a baptismal certificate? I do.
Does this mean that I am not a Catholic?
If you have a baptismal certificate, and you ever attended mass, all else being equal, my guess is that you, in fact, are, in the eyes of the church, and probably have been counted so by her demographers.
There are no lawyers in religion dumbass.
No, but there are plenty of half-baked jesuits with bugs up their behind who can't let go of a simple issue of little consequence. Who gives a rats ass if Hitler was catholic or not? Plain as the nose on your face, from the primary evidence I have offred you, Hitler persistently appealed to both anti-semitic and anti-jewish sentiments of the population of nazi germany. Which did not spring unbidden from the German brow--it was carefully cultivated by the Catholic church, by that churches own admission in the "We Remember" document.
The defense rests.
Man is fallible. God redirects him on His own schedule. Your pathalogical need to reach hundreds of years into the past to support your hatred is a clear indication that your theories are nothing but ugly lies.
The "We Remember" document was published at the end of the 2oth century, because of a felt need of repair--what do you think prompted that felt need?; anti-jewish sentiment was being promulgated by catholic clergy and in newspapers that were her vehicle for promulgating official announcements, well into the 20th century. Check out "Constantine's Sword" for references. Shame on you for your inability to acknowledge this. Why do you think the german clergy were willing to hand marriage and baptismal documents over to the SS? Why do you think the Slovokian clergy had to be admonished by PIUS XII?
Was Hitler a Christian?
You have quotes, I have quotes. Hitler was baptized catholic, made numerous public declamations of his faith, while Reichchancellor, which I have cited, & throughout the war, examples of which I have enumerated. and was not excommunicated by the PIUS XII, who outlived him, and Hitler attended no other church that anyone knows about.
By any reasonable definition that applies to ordinary folks, Hitler was a christian--you are straining a camel though a needle's eye, for obvious reasons, to see otherwise.
Actually, to be fair--that was a pretty balanced analysis, and I'll admit that I don't think Hitler was a "serious" christian, he was a hypocrite about it--but, let me point out that my church does not have a test at the door to keep hypocrites from attending, and I doubt that yours does either.
At any rate, the point at issue is--why was Hitler's pretense of christianity a prudent political move? Because His electorate was.
Sure, as soon as you do, and stop punctuating your arguments with epithets like "dumbass". You don't calm down a horse by digging your spurs into it.
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.