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

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.

I see you keep coming back to the "1400 years" mantra. Since you cannot find anything specific to damn Pius with, you are forced to contiually dredge up the Church's past to beat him over the head with.

Oh, I'd view it diametrically oppositely. Since the church's behavior is blatant and irrefutable, everyone would prefer to concentrate on PIUS's muddled record. For my money it's the "PIUS saved a bunch of jews so lets not give it any more thought", mantra.

So why write it at all? The Vatican was already on the "right side" of the war, they didn't need it to brush up their credentials.

I see--so those pictures of church officials giving the nazi salute beside Hitler that I posted, they were actually trying poke Hitler in the eye, I'll bet.

And you keep complaining that Nazis weren't excommunicated. What could that have possibly gained? You seem to be real big on useless pontificating. You must love the U.N.

Well, now, lets not abridge the argument. I complained about a multitude of things the church did to help the nazi's, such as turning over church records to help track down jews. Now, you might think that's "pontificating", but I happen to think that it's indictable as conspiracy to murder.

If you think Hamas are "Freedom Fighters", then I think you're anti-semitic too. One of their leaders once said that he hoped that the Jews did all move back to Israel so that they'd be able to kill them all in one place.

___Take your slurs and your
slanders elsewhere.

I'd like to see the actual show
where the author of your piece
about Novak got the quote about
Hamas.

There's a movement afoot to
trash Novak and it stinks. It should have no place on a conservative discussion forum.

I don't agree with him on Iraq,
but he has the right to disagree
with Sharon's policies without
being called anti-semitic.

As an aside, you continue to refer to the "accords" that Pius signed with Hitler as proof of his covert anti-semitism.

No, that is not a correct characterization. The church is officially now, as it was since time out of mind, official pro-semitic and anti-jewish. And would appreciate it if the rest of us could just kindly keep this vast separation in mind. PIUS had no trouble being kindly disposed toward semites, just as he had no trouble being fundamentally opposed to jewish religeous doctrine, to such a degree that, when asked about anti-jewish laws in Vichy France, responded that the ban on anti-semitism: Mit, does not imply that there can't be anti-jewish laws.

If helps you to be able to think like this, if you have an unlimited supply of jesuit legal help, I guess.

Yes, unidentified cardinals and bishops giving the nazi salute, and making happy kissy-face with Hitler at grand public gatherings to cement his legitimacy, and the legitimacy of his policies, in the eyes of catholics. All of which the Church has the power to prevent--had it the will.

Whoops. My mistake. I hadn't realized you'd stopped bashing Pius XII and moved on to damning the Catholic Church for not waving its magic wand and getting rid of Hitler in 1935. Sorry.

Now that we've established that "making happy kissy-face" by being photographed with Hitler pre-Holocaust is unforgivable, why stop at the Catholic Church? Let's make a list of diplomats and heads of state to bash. Then we'll ask the Catholic Church if we can borrow its magic time machine to rub out those evil people who once met Hitler.

Donh,
Why should Mel tone down his movie if it is out of the Holy Bible? I have said this many many times we do not have the luxury to pick and choose what we want to omit and accept from the Holy Scriptures either you beleive the bible or you don't it is that plain and simple.

The land dispute in Israel really comes down to G-d's prominse to Abraham and it has been a war ever since, so should we lie about that so we can apease others?

I take it your a G-d loving and fearing man and if that is truly the case what G-d says should always be the forefront especially when talking about his truth not man's.

So are you telling me that Hitler's mother was a Catholic his stepfather was Jewish and he was raised with the values of Christianity and Judiasm?

Maybe he was evil enough to hide behind the catholic faith so he could use religion as a foundation to kill jews and many other innocent people. This man was pure and simply EVIL he was not a man that practiced any form of Christianity and he is dead and gone and the world will not let a person like this rise to power, because the next time G-d's intervention will take over and wipe out the evil you constantly want to talk about.

So are you telling me that Hitler's mother was a Catholic his stepfather was Jewish and he was raised with the values of Christianity and Judiasm?

No, I am not, you, or someone you've read has made up a silly story chock full of incorrect facts. Go look in a reputable autobiography or before you ram your foot into your mouth any harder. What I told you was that he was educated by benedictine priests, served as a choir boy, and aspired to the cloth. All you which you can find out in minutes, from highly reputable sources, using Google, if you were so moved.

Maybe he was evil enough to hide behind the catholic faith so he could use religion as a foundation to kill jews and many other innocent people. This man was pure and simply EVIL he was not a man that practiced any form of Christianity and he is dead and gone and the world will not let a person like this rise to power, because the next time G-d's intervention will take over and wipe out the evil you constantly want to talk about.

Hitler was an averagely evil person--not even a psychopath, according to USArmy analysts. He leveraged a lot of jewish hatred in a lot of German and austrian hearts to produce in large scale exactly what that same hatred produced in smaller scale throughout europe for the previous 1400 years.

It is absurd to suggest (as many, such as yourself, would like to believe so as to wash their religion's hands, like Pontias Pilate, of jewish blood) that Hitler imposed the holocaust on Germany single-handed. Those SS propaganda posters that reach back into jewish religeous history for their iconography, all by themselves, ought to make that abundantly clear.

Whoops. My mistake. I hadn't realized you'd stopped bashing Pius XII and moved on to damning the Catholic Church for not waving its magic wand and getting rid of Hitler in 1935. Sorry.

I never stopped bashing PIUS XII, which is a proper subset of damning the Churches anti-jewish history leading up to, and in no small measure responsible for, the holocaust.

waving its magic wand and getting rid of Hitler in 1935. Sorry.

Right. Having signed a Concordat to refrain from attempting to do so, in return for, amongst other things, financial support for the church, several years earlier.

Now that we've established that "making happy kissy-face" by being photographed with Hitler pre-Holocaust

It is unclear when the holocaust started. No one's claim that any particular landmark in time is the start is anything but wind. So, in your opinion, If I look, I won't be able to find pictures of catholic clergy toadying up to Hitler during the Wanasee conference? After Kristalnacht? Is it also your opinion that any act to encourage Hitler's programs directly before the holocaust have no bearing on the question?

is unforgivable, why stop at the Catholic Church? Let's make a list of diplomats and heads of state to bash. Then we'll ask the Catholic Church if we can borrow its magic time machine to rub out those evil people who once met Hitler.

Because "diplomats and heads of state" are not the Shepards of God's kindom on earth, and the self-appointed spokesmen for God's moral word. Would you be in favor of letting a serial killer go if he argued that there are other serial killers out there?

One last time, Hitler was a psychopath who used any angle he had at his disposal to advance his wicked agenda. Your inability to discern this simple fact is sad.

One last time, Hitler was NOT a psychopath by any reasonable formal definition of the word, as the Army's psychological profile of him states, and as common sense ought to tell you. psychopaths do not spark massive world events due to fervently held beliefs, which Hitler quite obviously had concerning ayrian purity and transcendence and jewish corruption and decadence. Your inability to have noticed this rather starkly obvious fact of history is sad.

He most certainly did practice at being a catholic, and your thesis about God's intervention strikes a discordant note when one notices that God did, apparently, allow Hitler to rise to power in the first place.
(I did not mean it like that and I think you know that)
What I hear you saying is that Hitler was practicing like the Catholic Church endorsed his warpped beliefs? is this what you truly believe?
Do you know anything about Christianity or do you even care to?
My problem is why Nazi's and Hitler are even being discussed in regards to The Passion? Do you know that The Gospel of John is being shown all over the country right now, it was totally made by a Jewish Director and all the cast memebers are Jewish which is the truth from the BIBLE.
I do not see anybody jumping out of there skin over this film, I am sure it is because Hollywood is scared to death that a Major Moviestar is showing a movie about G-d and maybe this will be the trend for the future, so much for secular Hollywood maybe you like the smut that is out there but millions of us don't and are sick of people trying to throw G-d out of everything.

Also, most of what you have posted is hardly damning of the Church.

Is that right. Well, let me make sure to remedy that. I cite Cornwall's "Constantine's Sword", Goldhagen's "Hitler's willing executioners" and Zucotti's "Under His Very Window". You will find Zucotti's astonishingly well-researched book particularly insightful about one of the issues we've been on about here--whether PIUS XII saved a "handful" or a "fistful" of jews. Zucotti reviewed the recently released vatican archives and other primary source church records, and any other primary sources she could find, to try to discern PIUS XII's hand in the rescue of 800,000 jews, and came up with scant actual evidence of a connection between PIUS's hand and the hand of individual catholics & prelates in this regard. PIUS's defenders answer this by saying "Well, of course there are no records, otherwise the nazi's would have seized them."

So, let me point out that the attachment of PIUS's name to nearly all of those 800,000 saved is securely based on the proud claim that there is no record of it that a critical historian or a judge in court would find compelling.

What I hear you saying is that Hitler was practicing like the Catholic Church endorsed his warpped beliefs? is this what you truly believe?

I do not wish to rehash what I have already said, but, I will encapsulate it briefly: Hitler's anti-semitism was not endorsed by the church. His anti-jewish policies and laws, however, were either endorsed or ignored by a very large fraction of the catholic (and lutheren) clergy and laity of Europe. And PIUS XII passed up many, many opportunites to discourage that, and took one centrally noticable opportunity to encourage it when he signed the Concordat.

Do you know anything about Christianity or do you even care to?

I believe I have demonstrated a fairly reasonable comprehension of christian doctrine on this thread.

My problem is why Nazi's and Hitler are even being discussed in regards to The Passion?

Than I expect you've read nothing of what I said at the start of this argument about the Doctrine of Salvation through the passion of the crucifixion and resurrection being in conflict with the jewish Shema and the historical results of this conflict in the destruction of many jewish communities at the hands of incensed christians.

Do you know that The Gospel of John is being shown all over the country right now, it was totally made by a Jewish Director and all the cast memebers are Jewish which is the truth from the BIBLE.

Which proves what?

I do not see anybody jumping out of there skin over this film, I am sure it is because Hollywood is scared to death that a Major Moviestar is showing a movie about G-d and maybe this will be the trend for the future, so much for secular Hollywood maybe you like the smut that is out there but millions of us don't and are sick of people trying to throw G-d out of everything.

I really don't think Hollywood is quaking in it's boots at at the thought of a movie about religion. I seem to recall that "The Ten Commandments" did pretty well.

Which proves what?
That the Gospel of John is not fueling massive Anti-Semitism like you think The Passion might do.

You said an in an earlier post that You and I guess other Jewish people you know are bitter? that to me is playing the victim, because there is not one group of people in this world past and present that has not been afflicted by the evils of men, my opinion is there is no-one who suffered worse than Jesus Christ's crucifixcion and if he can forgive the world for what they had done to him than we also can learn to forgive that is truly THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE

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.