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.
And they will continue to be "dragged out" as long as you continue to discuss "Pius the Silent" (which he, by the way, properly earned, according to you). As it is painfully obvious to most people, it is impossible to label Pius "silent" when there are so many contemporary accounts (not "after dinner testimonials) relating exactly what he said. The two are mutually exclusive.
Of course PIUS helped the jews
We'll see if that is still "operational" later in the thread.
--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.
That's a monstrously stupid thing to say. Pius, even before he was Pope, denounced Nazism in the fiercest terms:
In the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) whose final form Pius XI attributed to then-Cardinal Pacelli, made the statement:
You have to jam your fingers pretty deep into your ears (and close your eyes very tightly) in order for Pius to be "silent".
Well, that's pretty amusing, since I quoted his cite back to him. Do you also have an allergy to reading what I've written before responding to it?
A person can say anything they want to about the church. Until you make formal request, or the church throws you out, the default conclusion is that you are what you were. Has anyone denied that Hitler was raised Catholic, and was catholic most of his life? And that his hatred of jews was therefore markedly similar to that of most german catholic jew-haters? This is growing more and more curious. What do you think you will gain from winning this argument? Not much, it appears.
Perhaps. Sort of like a gag reflex.
Your charge is beyond contemptuous.
I am not a Novak fan, but your claim is libelous. Novak is not a political supporter of Israel, but that does not make the man anti-semitic. I think he's wrong on Israel. I think he's wrong about a lot of things. But to call the man anti-semitic is malignantly ignorant.
Well, that, or you might note all the things PIUS didn't do, that puzzled his contemporaries. Like: a) failing to excommunicate all those engaged in the "jewish solution". b) failing to remove the archbishop of slovokia. c) failing to halt the use of church records to help the SS ferret out jews, as opposed to doing so for jewish converts to christianity. d) architecting an accord with Hitler in which he specifically abstains the church from having a public opinion on "political" questions--such as, murdering millions of jews, for example.
And what is the defense I am about to hear? "Oh, if he had spoken up more would have died." So which is it? Was he silent on one side of his defender's mouth and loud on the other? Apparently, the theory is that he was silent, unless he wasn't. His silence may have been laudable, though I doubt it, looking the eugenics case, but it was definitely silence. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
PIUS helped many jews. What he did not do, what he was incapable of doing, was repudiating his churches inability to see them as having the same moral worth as ,say, lame, handicapped christians. If he can speak with the Voice of Jesus for the lame, why can't he do it for the jews? Why, in fact, did he architect a document in which he explicitly committed his church to "plugging it's ears" as you say.
I have said what I have to say. It appears to me that you have hate in your heart for some reason. I'm not going to try to convince you any further than I'd try to convince a screaming Liberal about the virtues of Conservatism.
I hope some day, you will have a change of heart. May God bless you.
What? What are you talking about?
2 - They are not after-dinner testimonials, so your characterization is wrong.
Are they testimonials, or are they not? Testimonials are not a proper answer to specific forensic charges backed up by documents in the accused's own hand.
3 - "Adumbrate" is a fairly accurate description of the vague accusations you hurl.
So?
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.
Oh, indeed. How twisted is the "We Remember" document issued by the catholic church? How twisted is Matthew? How twisted is the doctrine of salvation through the crucifixion and resurrection? How twisted is my recitation of the contents of the Accords between Hitler and the Catholic church?
That is correct. When mass murders and tortures by public institutions are committed, I have hate in my heart for ALL the germain causes, and a desire to see them laid out permanently and promenently for the world to consider.
Try this. It’s sourced. And just in case the prospect of facing sourced information scars you, I’ll post a taste
For example, the New York Times reported that Bishop Fidel Garcia y Martinez, Bishop of Calahorra in Spain, condemned Nazi propaganda and racism in a pastoral letter published in February, 1942, based on Mit Brennender Sorge of Pope Pius XI. In his pastoral letter, the bishop included texts by the German Catholic Bishops in their 1941 pastoral letter from Fulda as well as sections from the pastoral letter by the Catholic bishops of the Netherlands. Circulation of all these works, the Times pointed out, was forbidden in Germany. (N.Y. Times, May 24, 1942, p.4, 1-2)
The German Catholic bishops issued a second pastoral letter on March 22, 1942, the first having been published in the autumn of 1941. Both were formal protests against policies of the Nazi regime, and were read publicly in every Catholic pulpit throughout Germany. The first was a general condemnation of Nazi doctrines. The second, read on Passion Sunday, protested vehemently against Hitler’s then new policies of interfering in Church affairs and education, and strongly protested against “all violations of personal freedom,” against the killing of insane persons and the proposal to kill incurables, against unjust seizure of individuals and of property. (N.Y. Times, June 7, 1942, p. 12, 1-5)
The only reason I continue to entertain this discussion is not for your edification, you’re lost, but for those lurking.
Oh, indeed. No one will address my point, and that's fine. I show you until I'm blue in the face that that doesn't address the point, and that's "eisegesis". Fine, have it your way.
The historical evidence, and professional opinions of observers and Jews, most appropriately including those that were there, all praise Pius. You sweep all that aside, accepting spin, propoganda, and bad research by those with an unhiddden bias. That is a prima facia case of eisegesis. Unless you can refute that, it really is pointless to attempt to discuss truth with you because you refuse to see.
address my enumerated points, a) through d), in a just previous post, and I will once again explain to you why this is yet another chapter of this sustained exercise in bait&switch rhetorical tactics.
I AM NOT DENYING THAT PIUS SAVED JEWS. IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE TO CONTINUE PROVING IT OVER AND OVER. Got it? Probably not. Sheesh.
Oh, indeed. No one will address my point, and that's fine. I show you until I'm blue in the face that that doesn't address the point, and that's "eisegesis". Fine, have it your way.
The historical evidence, and professional opinions of observers and Jews, most appropriately including those that were there, all praise Pius. You sweep all that aside, accepting spin, propoganda, and bad research by those with an unhiddden bias. That is a prima facia case of eisegesis. Unless you can refute that, it really is pointless to attempt to discuss truth with you because you refuse to see.
address my enumerated points, a) through d), in a just previous post, and I will once again explain to you why this is yet another chapter of this sustained exercise in bait&switch rhetorical tactics.
I AM NOT DENYING THAT PIUS SAVED JEWS. IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE TO CONTINUE PROVING IT OVER AND OVER. Got it? Probably not. Sheesh.
By xmas, 1942, most of the German Jews were ash. PIUS himself spoke up with the Official Voice in xmas 1942--with the Allies upcoming victory plain to see. And this is your evidence--a pastoral letter that's too little, too late? BFD.
Oh, and the "Catholic League" has no irons in the fire?
Is that the best you can do?
No, as a matter of fact, it's not. It's just what I could do quick. Since I've cited hundreds of primary sources on this thread, including the bible, the doctrine of salvation through christ, a mass of Hitler quotes from speeches, and nazi posters, and first person narratives, I'll take this feeble thrust with a grain of salt.
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.