Novak: No anti-Semitism in Gibson's 'Passion'

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 11-03-03

[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.

[conservonator]

Did you read the text I linked to? Did you notice the source? Do you have even the most basic understanding of the Catholic concept of excommunication? Your intellectual dishonesty is profound to the point of being comical.

[presidio9]

No seriously. Every point you have made has been refuted. Dozens of people have come on to this thread to tell you what biggoted jackass you are. You have demonstrated a nonexistant understanding of the Catholic Religion. At this point it appears that you are continuing for two reasons: You hate Catholics, and you are unable to admit that you are wrong. My religion prevents me from acting as an enabler to your nerosis, but even if it didn't, I am just bored of your lame comebacks.

[donh]

You posted the link, not me. You offered up this garbage as evidence that your biggotry is politically correct. Defend it.

The SS's use of church records is not seriously in question by historians. "Constantine's Sword", which has a very ample bibliography is as good a reference as any. Your coninuing jesuistry as you attempt to wiggle around looking for some marginal issue to hang your pitiful defense of the church on regarding the fundamental question here is amusing. Stein's own web site maintained by the carmalite sisters says the the nazi's "discovered" Stein's jewish ancestry, so the reference you are rather amusingly disparaging probably got that notion from Stein's nuns.

[Barnacle]

Ping

(If you want on or off my Catholic Ping List, please send a Freepmail.)

[donh]

Did you read the text I linked to? Did you notice the source?

Why, yes I did, and I found not one reference to ex-communication there.

Do you have even the most basic understanding of the Catholic concept of excommunication?

I, in fact, made a long reference to excommunication in the long list of cites in a previous post, which, apprently, you have not read, even though it stands out in this thread like a four-alarm fire.

Your intellectual dishonesty is profound to the point of being comical.

Do tell? Have I misquoted Matthew? Have I mis-represented what the Shema and the doctrine of salvation say? Have I invented the churches history regarding, say, who invented forced ghetto-ization? Who invented the yellow star armband? Who used to kidnap jewish children to be brought up christian? Who issued encyclicals against jews? Who sequestered jews by force in their own synagoges on their own holy days to preach the holy word of God, and the works of Thomas Aquinus to them in order to save them? Who sponsored the 1st crusade, which started with the pogrom of jews at Linz?

[Barnacle]

Sure. That must be the reason the head Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism at the end of World War II.

[Barnacle]

A former Israeli diplomat in Italy claimed that: "The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all the other Churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations put together. Its record stands in startling contrast to the achievements of the International Red Cross and the Western Democracies."

http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/realstory.htm

[donh]

No seriously. Every point you have made has been refuted.

Really? Who refuted my description of the conflict between the Shema and the doctine of salvation? Who refuted the quote from Matthew? Who refuted my claim regarding the invention of forced ghetto-ization by the catholic church?

Dozens of people have come on to this thread to tell you what biggoted jackass you are.

Yes, well, we don't vote on matters of fact and conscience, now do we?

You have demonstrated a nonexistant understanding of the Catholic Religion.

Which is not in the least relevant, now is it? Except, of course, to those who would prefer that only the annointed discuss their rather immoral historical behavior in public.

At this point it appears that you are continuing for two reasons: You hate Catholics, and you are unable to admit that you are wrong.

I do not hate catholics, per se--several of my family are practicing catholics, and I happy to admit I was wrong on this thread regarding several statistical points, and an overboard summary description of PIUS XII early in this discussion. What I hate, is when a large institution does serious damage to an entire group of people, and it takes thousands of hours of painstaking scholarship, and political wrangling to get it published, to say "I'm marginally sorry, and I PROBABLY won't do it again", and then most of it's adherents refuse to read it or acknowledge it.

My religion prevents me from acting as an enabler to your nerosis,

Really? Could you quote the scripture underlying this proscription?

but even if it didn't, I am just bored of your lame comebacks

Well, it's pretty painfully obvious that that's not true.

[conservonator]

Since you have such a profound knowledge of Catholic canon law, you should be able to provide an explanation as to why an "official" pronouncement of excommunication would have been redundant. If you need help go here and here.

As to the rest of your comments: I'm not interested in the opinion of someone who cant wrap his mind around the objective reality that Hitler was not a Catholic, much less a Christian.

[TomB]

From Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests." (Ibid.) Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that "whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world." With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust."

[polemikos]

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany,
I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they
had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth;
but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I
looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming
editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of
freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a
few short weeks...

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's
campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special
interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great
affection and admiration because the Church alone has had
the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth
and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I
once despised I now praise unreservedly."

Albert Einstein
Time Magazine, 12/23/40

---

The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II
so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that
in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into
the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same
one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli
wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.

---

"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and
darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about
the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to
raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely
against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims
are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a
Christian peace."

The New York Times editorial
12/25/41 (Late Day edition, p. 24)

---

"This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying
out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses
as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of
the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at
building a new world must fight for free choice of
government and religious order. They must refuse that the
state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state
disposes as if they were lifeless things."

The New York Times editorial
12/25/42 (Late Day edition, p. 16)

---

"[Pope Pius XII] took an unequivocal stand against the
oppression of Jews throughout Europe."

-- American Jewish Yearbook, 1943-44

---

"The Church and papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far
as they could save Christians…Six million of my co-religionists
have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many
more victims, had it not been for the efficacious intervention
of Pius XII."

-- Dr. Rafael Cantoni,
head of the Italian Jewish Assistance Committee

---

"I express my thanks as well as deep appreciation…of the
invaluable help given by the Catholic Church to the Jewish
people in its affliction."

-- Grand Rabbi Isaac Herzog of Jerusalem

---

"[I praise the pope and Catholics] who recognized the
persecuted as their brothers."

-- Dr. Joseph Nathan,
head of the wartime Italian Hebrew Commission

---

"[To Pius XII]...the warmest thanks for the efforts of the
Catholic Church on behalf of Jews throughout Europe during the war."

-- Dr. A. Leo Kubowitzler,
Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress

[donh]

This is about the forth time, I think that this series of quotes has been dragged out. And, to repeat myself, after-dinner testimonials that don't address the point are not a meaningful response to the problems I have just now adumbrated for about the forth time, without anyone attempting to answer it, or come to grips with it, or for that matter, meaningfully acknowledged the existence thereof.

Of course PIUS helped the jews--that does not mean he and his church aren't guilty of contributed mightily to getting them in the nazi gunsites in the first place. Just as the church owns up to in the "We Remember" document.

[donh]

see post #232 of this thread.

[Barnacle]

see post #226 of this thread.

[donh]

Since you have such a profound knowledge of Catholic canon law, you should be able to provide an explanation as to why an "official" pronouncement of excommunication would have been redundant. If you need help go here and here.

Catholic conference the excommunicated the Nazi's? Is this what your cite is referring to?:

the Fulda conference of Catholic Bishops voted that no one wearing a swastika could receive communion.

Second, in 1933, perhaps the most prominent German Catholic who was not ordained, Franz von Papen, wangled Hitler's appointment as Chancellor. 

Third, shortly afterward, the Fulda conference reversed itself. From then on, throughout the Holocaust, Catholics wearing swastikas (not a contradiction, after all) were welcome at the communion rail.

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2003/10/church_and_the_.html

Oh, and by the way, your own first cite says that no one knows if Hitler was formally excommunicated or not.

Are you just encapable of reading what I write to you, or are you just too blinded by the mad rush to defend the church to think about what's being said? Hitler's catholocism or lack thereof, which remains undemonstrated (I've matched anybody posting here, quote for quote, on the question of Hitler's catholicism), has little effect on my argument.

As to the rest of your comments: I'm not interested in the opinion of someone who cant wrap his mind around the objective reality that Hitler was not a Catholic, much less a Christian.

Uh huh. I see that your lack of interest doesn't prevent you from searching the internet for marginally supportive cites in order to find an excuse to get in one more rude crack.

[donh]

Sure. That must be the reason the head Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism at the end of World War II.

And Edith Stein converted from Jew to Catholic. So what? How many times do I have to say that testimonials to the effect that PIUS XII was a keen fellow answers none of my charges? But it sure makes a handy way to keep your brain from responding to a request to operate on some specific data you may not feel comfortable acknowledging.

[polemikos]

1 - I didn't see these quotes listed together, so your snide comment not withstanding, they bear posting at the risk of repeating.
2 - They are not after-dinner testimonials, so your characterization is wrong.
3 - "Adumbrate" is a fairly accurate description of the vague accusations you hurl.
4 - Another word you could look up is "eisegesis" which describes how you came to your conclusion first and then accepted only evidence, no matter how twisted, to support your conclusion.

[donh]

Hitler may have been born a Catholic, he may have been babtized a Catholic, but he was not Catholic. Part of the tenant of the church is that your actions are intertwined with your intent.

I see. And is it your opinion that Hitler might, or might not, have been forgiven his sins upon confession and contrition through the doctrine of salvation through acknowledgement of christ as savior by virtue of the crucifixion and ressurection.

In one of your earliest posts you stated you were born a catholic. Does that make you one now?

That's what it says in my hospital records at St. Vincent De Paul hospital, on my discharge papers, and on my baptismal certificate. And I have never formally repudiated the church by, say, writing a letter to my priest asking to be removed from the roles, or excommunicated for cause, as sometimes occurs. Why don't you see what your priest has to say about this?

I'm curious what you and the other posters here think you will gain, if you gain this point? If Hitler was not a christian, than that demonstrates that he knew he had to appeal to a christian audience by spouting christian rhetoric. If you win this battle, you lose the war. Curious.

[Barnacle]

donh,

Ignorance is curable. But, choosing ignorance over truth is plain old stupid.

Since you apparently have refused to acknowledge the links that conservonator provided for your edification, allow me to quote some of what is on the first one:

http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html

Was Hitler a Christian?

The allegation is sometimes made that Hitler was a Catholic - a Christian until the day he died. This claim is based upon the fact that Hitler was born and raised in a Catholic family.

However, as an adult, Hitler specifically rejected the Catholic Church, as well as Christianity in general. He described himself as "a complete pagan".

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations: 1941-1944, published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. (1953), contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, Hitler's Table Talk: 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:



Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:


National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:


Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:


The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:


The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:


Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:


Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:


Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:


There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:


It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

[donh]

eisegesis"

exegesis, I presume you mean. Since I am arguing to take Matthew at his word, just as the Catholic Church did for 1400 years, instead of hunting high and low to try to unsay the self-cursing of the jews for jesus's death that Matthew reports, that's pretty amusing.