Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Novak: No anti-Semitism in Gibson's 'Passion'
Chicago Sun Times ^ | 11-03-03

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS: antisemitism; moviereview; novak; passion; robertnovak; thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 461-476 next last
To: donh
And how long ago was the Ten Commandments made?
The world has made a drastic (FOR THE WORSE) change since the Ten Commandments were made, we are in the perils of the world collapsing morally,spiritually and emotionally, if you don't see that then I suggest you take your blinders off and see what the world is truly about MORAL DECAY.
I hope The Psssion will be a start even if it is a small one for people to see the christian message of hope, love, forgiveness, and PEACE and I hope that is what you would want too.
341 posted on 11/10/2003 11:45:48 AM PST by missyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: missyme
And how long ago was the Ten Commandments made? The world has made a drastic (FOR THE WORSE) change since the Ten Commandments were made, we are in the perils of the world collapsing morally,spiritually and emotionally, if you don't see that then I suggest you take your blinders off and see what the world is truly about MORAL DECAY. I hope The Psssion will be a start even if it is a small one for people to see the christian message of hope, love, forgiveness, and PEACE and I hope that is what you would want too.

I cannot imagine a bigger display of MORAL DECAY, than for ANY of God's Shepards to sit with their thumbs up their butts while jewish mothers and children are being murdered in such creative ways as by tying their legs together while they are giving birth. If the world didn't collapse under the weight of that, it isn't in any such peril now.

342 posted on 11/10/2003 11:55:39 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

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

The Gospel of John is the second-most quoted Gospel after Matthew, by anti-jewish bigots. It most definitely has been fueling anti-jewish sentiment and pogroms, since about 414ad. The doctrine of salvation through the crucifixion and resurrection features promenenly the rejection of jesus by his own people. That is an integral part of the Passion. It is also a fundamental claim of the Passion that you if you know OF jesus, and do not accept his has savior, you are condemned.

Yes or no? Are you saved if you know of jesus and do not accept him as savior?-- as orthodox jews cannot, if they wish to hold fast to the beliefs of their fathers in the essential unity and ineffability of God?

You said an in an earlier post that You and I guess other Jewish people you know are bitter?

I am not jewish, and I have not observed that my jewish friends are particularly bitter. I think they should be, but I haven't observed it.

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

A good parent does not forive an act of trespass until sufficient genuine contrition is observed. Painting big daubs of Jesus's Moral Whiteout over a steaming pustule of marginally repentant guilt is not my idea of a responsible christian act.

343 posted on 11/10/2003 12:09:36 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: donh
donh,

You need to study history a little better. You're just spouting unsupported claims of anti-Catholics.

RE: The Concordat
Eugenio Pacelli publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism both before and after he became pope. He denounced the deportations and persecution of Europe’s Jews and was almost universally recognized, including by the Nazis themselves, as an unrelenting opponent of the National Socialist regime. Throughout the 1930s, Pacelli was widely lampooned in the Nazi press as Pius XI’s "Jew-loving" cardinal. It is obvius that Pius XII, far from being "silent," was a persistent critic of Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Critics of Pius XII have long used the Holy See’s 1933 Concordat with Germany to attack him, since Pacelli himself played a major role in negotiating it during the time he served as Pius XI’s Secretary of State. The critics claim that the Concordat silenced German Catholics who otherwise would have opposed Hitler and might have held him in check. But the Concordat was in fact a largely pragmatic and morally-defensible diplomatic measure to protect Catholics within Germany and to ensure the continuity and freedom of the German Catholic Church. The Germans had proposed the Concordat, and for the Vatican to have rejected it out of hand would have been prejudicial to the rights of Catholics in Germany. From the vantage point of German Jews, it was morally defensible as well, since it was signed in July 1933, well before Hitler had begun to enact any of his anti-Semitic legislation or decrees. The widely recognized start of the Holocaust, Kristallnacht, didn't occur until 5 years later in November 1938.

Also, the Concordat did not precipitate the collapse of Germany’s Catholic Center Party. The Center Party had been founded during the pontificate of Pius IX in the nineteenth century to defend Catholics against Bismarck’s campaign against them. The Pope had given it his blessing, and it had become increasingly influential in the decades that followed, serving as a vehicle for lay Catholic participation in German party politics and for the protection of Catholic political and religious interests in German public life. However, its influence had steadily declined during the last years of the Weimar Republic and, as Rychlak has shown, it was almost eliminated by the Nazis in March 1933. Then, on July 5, 1933, two weeks before the Concordat was signed, the party decided to dissolve itself voluntarily. It was thus not Pacelli and his negotiation of the Concordat that caused the party’s political decline and ultimate demise. On the contrary, as even so vociferous a critic as James Carroll has conceded, "even before the Concordat was formally signed, the Center Party had ceased to exist." Numerous respected historians — including the Germans Heinz Hurten, Ludwig Volk, and Konrad Repgen, and the American Stewart Stehlin — have marshaled considerable historical evidence in defense of the Concordat and of Pacelli’s role in negotiating it. Unfortunately, their work has gone largely uncited and undiscussed by most of the Pope’s most vociferous critics.

The Concordat issue doesn't support the claims of anti-Catholics. Any others?
344 posted on 11/10/2003 12:28:52 PM PST by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: donh
And I cannot imagine the Ku-Klux clan beating and hanging innocent blacks from trees whipping them to the bone, nor can I imagine the Taliban shooting women in the head in there town square and I also cannot beleive that a wonderful man as JESUS CHRIST was whipped, beaten, scourged with nails hanging from a cross, for spreading a message of LOVE and Forgiveness and like I said if he can forgive so can we, You and I are not G-d and it really doesn't matter what you think and wonder about G-d your job is to beleive if your a man of faith.
345 posted on 11/10/2003 12:31:04 PM PST by missyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: donh
<>iI 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.

In the interests of consistency, then, you also condemn all Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist leaders who did not condemn Hitler from "Mein Kampf" on, right?

Right. Having signed a Concordat to refrain from attempting to [get rid of Hitler], in return for, amongst other things, financial support for the church, several years earlier.

You mean the 1933 agreement under which the Vatican got out of politics in Germany in exchange for the right for the Church to operate at all in Germany?

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?

I'm sure you could find pictures of individual members of the Catholic clergy doing all sorts of terrible things on a lot of occasions. This does not mean the Pius XII is responsible for the Holocaust.

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?

So any Catholic official who met with Hitler at any time is the moral equivalent of a serial killer? Please.

Your anti-Catholic agenda is as sad as it is obvious. In the face of Naziism, all sorts of people and organizations chose to cooperate rather than be destroyed, before and after the Holocaust. But when presented with evidence that Pius XII and the Catholic Church saved hundreds of thousands of Jews, all you can say is that they did not do enough. When presented with evidence that the Nazi's were themselves anti-Catholic, you say that Catholics "contributed" to anti-Semitism.

Hindsight is 20/20. One of the few leaders in the 1930's who saw the threat of Hitler was Pius XII, both before and after he became pope. That he helped save so many of those who were not even in his flock is worthy of admiration, not condemnation.

I've had enough of your hate and bigotry. I will pray for you.

346 posted on 11/10/2003 12:44:20 PM PST by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
RE: The Concordat Eugenio Pacelli publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism both before and after he became pope. He denounced the deportations and persecution of Europe’s Jews and was almost universally recognized, including by the Nazis themselves, as an unrelenting opponent of the National Socialist regime. Throughout the 1930s, Pacelli was widely lampooned in the Nazi press as Pius XI’s "Jew-loving" cardinal. It is obvius that Pius XII, far from being "silent," was a persistent critic of Hitler and the Nazi regime.

None of this answers the specific chages brought in the references I gave you. The ferocity of the nazi reaction is not a measure of the specificity or tellingness of PIUS's remonstrances, which were, as changed, markedly non-specific as to measured catholic response, as compared to what he might have done or said. If you think otherwise, than kindly post your reference to PIUS XII's specific instructions to German catholic prelates, say, to send their birth and marriage records to Timbuctoo, or the nearest fireplace, instead of the SS. Said which, of course, would have been a violation of the Concordat's terms that the catholic germans stay out of politics.

347 posted on 11/10/2003 1:06:21 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
RE: The Concordat Eugenio Pacelli publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism both before and after he became pope. He denounced the deportations and persecution of Europe’s Jews and was almost universally recognized, including by the Nazis themselves, as an unrelenting opponent of the National Socialist regime. Throughout the 1930s, Pacelli was widely lampooned in the Nazi press as Pius XI’s "Jew-loving" cardinal. It is obvius that Pius XII, far from being "silent," was a persistent critic of Hitler and the Nazi regime.

None of this answers the specific chages brought in the references I gave you. The ferocity of the nazi reaction is not a measure of the specificity or tellingness of PIUS's remonstrances, which were, as changed, markedly non-specific as to measured catholic response, as compared to what he might have done or said. If you think otherwise, than kindly post your reference to PIUS XII's specific instructions to German catholic prelates, say, to send their birth and marriage records to Timbuctoo, or the nearest fireplace, instead of the SS. Said which, of course, would have been a violation of the Concordat's terms that the catholic germans stay out of politics.

But the Concordat was in fact a largely pragmatic and morally-defensible diplomatic measure to protect Catholics within Germany and to ensure the continuity and freedom of the German Catholic Church.

By taking Nazi money in return for an explicit promise to abstain from political activities in Germany.

From the vantage point of German Jews, it was morally defensible as well, since it was signed in July 1933, well before Hitler had begun to enact any of his anti-Semitic legislation or decrees. The widely recognized start of the Holocaust, Kristallnacht, didn't occur until 5 years later in November 1938.

March 22, 1933 - Nazis open Dachau concentration camp near Munich, to be followed by Buchenwald near Weimar in central Germany, Sachsenhausen near Berlin in northern Germany, and Ravensbrück for women.

March 24, 1933 - German Parliament passes Enabling Act giving Hitler dictatorial powers. 

See also - The Rise of Hitler - from Unknown to Dictator of Germany

April 1, 1933 - Nazis stage boycott of Jewish shops and businesses.

April 11, 1933 - Nazis issue a decree defining a non-Aryan as "anyone descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. One parent or grandparent classifies the descendant as non-Aryan...especially if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith."

April 26, 1933 - The Gestapo is born, created by Hermann Göring in the German state of Prussia.

May 10, 1933 - Burning of books in Berlin and throughout Germany.

July 14, 1933 - Nazi Party is declared the only legal party in Germany; Also, Nazis pass Law to strip Jewish immigrants from Poland of their German citizenship.

In July - Nazis pass law allowing for forced sterilization of those found by a Hereditary Health Court to have genetic defects.

In Sept - Nazis establish Reich Chamber of Culture, then exclude Jews from the Arts.

Sept 29, 1933 - Nazis prohibit Jews from owning land.

Oct 4, 1933 - Jews are prohibited from being newspaper editors.

Nov 24, 1933 - Nazis pass a Law against Habitual and Dangerous Criminals, which allows beggars, the homeless, alcoholics and the unemployed to be sent to concentration camps.



1934 

Jan 24, 1934 - Jews are banned from the German Labor Front.

May 17, 1934 - Jews not allowed national health insurance.

June 30, 1934 - The Night of Long Knives occurs as Hitler, Göring and Himmler conduct a purge of the SA (storm trooper) leadership.

July 20, 1934 - The SS (Schutzstaffel) is made an independent organization from the SA. 

July 22, 1934 - Jews are prohibited from getting legal qualifications.

Numerous respected historians — including the Germans Heinz Hurten, Ludwig Volk, and Konrad Repgen, and the American Stewart Stehlin — have marshaled considerable historical evidence in defense of the Concordat and of Pacelli’s role in negotiating it. Unfortunately, their work has gone largely uncited and undiscussed by most of the Pope’s most vociferous critics.

Than, by all means, please discuss them. How did an explicit agreement for the church to shut up about the jews help the jews?

The Concordat issue doesn't support the claims of anti-Catholics. Any others?

I'll repeat myself one more time. The Concordat was, amongst other things, an agreement for the catholic church to receive money from nazi's and shut up about political questions. Do you or Carroll, or anyone else think this somehow might have encouraged the Catholic party in germany to continue in existence? The centrists might very well have been feeble by the time of the Concordat, but if you believe that the forbidding catholic political action in germany by agreement is some sort of invigorating spur to the centrist catholic party, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

The Concordat issue doesn't support the claims of anti-Catholics.

In the eyes of catholic apologists.

348 posted on 11/10/2003 1:24:29 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Bohemund
In the interests of consistency, then, you also condemn all Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist leaders who did not condemn Hitler from "Mein Kampf" on, right?

I have mentioned the lutherens many times here, and as for the rest. Yes, I should also find them wanting, much as I agree that serial killers should be prosecuted, and children should be punished for stealing candy.

349 posted on 11/10/2003 1:27:12 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: donh
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.

...Your hatred has driven you mad. You need help.

350 posted on 11/10/2003 1:32:54 PM PST by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: donh
Every on of those "authors” has been exposed as anti-Catholic hacks. I'm surprised that you haven’t brought Ian Paisley in to this "discussion".

Seek help.

351 posted on 11/10/2003 1:36:03 PM PST by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: donh
So what? An accurate quote does not automatically a devastating argument make.

Listen to your self man! You have lost your mind! seek help!!!

You post lies, they are exposed and yet you persist, seek help!!!

352 posted on 11/10/2003 1:40:55 PM PST by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: donh
So in your opinion who is to blame for killing Jesus Christ?
353 posted on 11/10/2003 1:58:35 PM PST by missyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: missyme
So in your opinion who is to blame for killing Jesus Christ?

Romans, of course--contrary to anything Matthew or John might have said. They were an occupying army with a keen interest in suppressing possible messiahs who might lead revolts. And they no doubt liked it very much when a vichy goverment like the Sanhedren deflected they ire of the populace away from the Romans. Jewish tradition does not support the Cross, it supports stoning. The cross was a roman invention of jurisprudence.

354 posted on 11/10/2003 2:24:19 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Listen to your self man! You have lost your mind! seek help!!!

I'll repeat myself--an accurate quote does not a devastating argument make. Flapping your wings like a chicken with it's head cut off does not change this simple fact of rhetoric and logic.

You post lies, they are exposed and yet you persist, seek help!!!

Really? Have I misrepresented Matthew's words? Have I misrepresented the Docrine of Salvation? In what manner? Be specific.

355 posted on 11/10/2003 2:27:27 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: donh
Very funny. You reveal yourself yet again through your arguments.

To claim that somebody could have done more is a logical fallacy. That Pius XII achieved more than anyone else is sufficient proof of his actions.

Your long string of dates and events proves nothing in themselves. For example, for the opening of Dachau to be relevant, it would have to be shown that:
1 - it was a widely known event
2 - its ultimate purpose was widely known
3 - Pius XII knew this purpose
4 - And still, Pacelli signed the Concordant knowing that purpose
5 - Rome knew the Concordat forced them to acquiese to that purpose.
You can't, so that the event, while ultimately horrible, is irrelevant. Same for all the others.

Nevertheless, Rome, restricted to only its words and moral actions, still must try and protect the religious freedom of Catholics in Germany.

The Concordat was ... an agreement for the catholic church to receive money from nazi's and shut up about political questions.

Sorry. Can you point out where the money exchange occurred?

That the CC was precluded from political activities is important why? Similar restrictions exist in the United States. The Holy See was also explicitly forbidding its clergy from being Nazis.

Do you or Carroll, or anyone else think this somehow might have encouraged the Catholic party in germany to continue in existence?

Moot point. The Catholic Centrists didn't exist.
356 posted on 11/10/2003 2:29:51 PM PST by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Every on of those "authors” has been exposed as anti-Catholic hacks. I'm surprised that you haven’t brought Ian Paisley in to this "discussion".

Really? Carroll, Goldhagen and Zuccotti have been exposed as "anti-catholic hacks. That will come as quite a surprise to the NY Times and the Yale review of books. I don't suppose you have a slew of nationally reputable sources for this, other than from pro-catholic journals?

357 posted on 11/10/2003 2:31:01 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: donh
So in your opinion who is to blame for killing Jesus Christ?

Romans, of course--contrary to anything Matthew or John might have said. They were an occupying army with a keen interest in suppressing possible messiahs who might lead revolts. And they no doubt liked it very much when a vichy goverment like the Sanhedren deflected they ire of the populace away from the Romans. Jewish tradition does not support the Cross, it supports stoning. The cross was a roman invention of jurisprudence.

I'm confident we can disregard Matthew, John, Luke and Mark and conclude that Jesus died in a car accident.

358 posted on 11/10/2003 2:32:54 PM PST by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: donh
Exactly, but you missed the point We are all guilty of the death of Jesus all Jew, Gentile, Roman ALL not some ALL

This is the message: We have ALL fallen short in the Glory of G-d not just the jews or the gentiles but ALL.

Jesus came to die that is the prophecy if he had not been killed Christianity would be meaningless and cease to exsist.

You keep missing the message and are hung up on the word BLAME
359 posted on 11/10/2003 2:34:20 PM PST by missyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: donh
Out of curiosity do you practice any one faith? do you beleive in G-d? I thought you might be Jewish and now I think you might be an agnostic....

360 posted on 11/10/2003 2:36:54 PM PST by missyme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 461-476 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson