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.
Oh, what logical fallacy would that be, by name?
That Pius XII achieved more than anyone else is sufficient proof of his actions.
That is not "proven" See Zuccotti site, this thread.
And if it were proven, it still doesn't even address the question of whether or not he contributed to the Churches long-standing anti-jewish doctrine, which he did as cited.
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.
Oh, give it a rest, the handwriting was plainly on the wall for all to see long before 1939, or 1941, or whenever you jokers think you can claim that the Holocaust suddenly sprang unbidden from Hitler's brow.
Moot point. The Catholic Centrists didn't exist.
And, as of the agreement, forbidden to recur. From which lesson what will the average german catholic citizen have learned about the Holy See's opinion of mounting political opposition to the Reich?
Sorry. Can you point out where the money exchange occurred?
No. Just as I can't tell you where or how the central bank sends money to it's member banks.
That the CC was precluded from political activities is important why?
I assume you're kidding--unless you think murdering 6 million jews was an apolitical act.
Similar restrictions exist in the United States.
And what a comfort that is.
The Holy See was also explicitly forbidding its clergy from being Nazis.
But did not forbid them to hand over church birth and marriage records to the SS, --that would have been a political act--forbidden by the Protocols.
Matthew says that Jesus was condemned by the jews present, and that they jews proclaimed that "His blood be upon us, and our children.". Matthew has the jews condemning themselves for the death of christ. Are you incapable of reading the Gospels you appear to want to defend?
Yes. I am illiterate. I am not typing this.
NO the point, acknowledged now by most of the Churches' historians was specifically, purposefully to lay blood guilt on the jews, to help win converts to christianity from the principle source of converts: orthodox jews. The church now specifically disowns this blood guilt, in the wake of the Holocaust, but had no trouble reading what it says plainly in Matthew, for some 1400 years previously.
literacy is irrelevant if you are in denial and cannot bring yourself to look the evidence in the face.
I have no idea what in Matthew's Gospel I am supposed to be ignoring. You are the one who says that we should ignore Matthew's and John's accounts.
I keep missing the message because it changed dramatically, but, not, unfortunately, dramatically enough, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and I am hung up on the evidence of the harm that the message has been allowed to do when manifested in church policy toward the jews over the last 1400 years.
Nice attempted dodge. You and I have been discussing Hitler and pope Pius XII. Try to keep that in mind.
than go to the beginning of this argument where I quote it and read it.
You are the one who says that we should ignore Matthew's and John's accounts.
I did not say that. I said to read what it says in Matthew about the blood guilt of the jews, And what it says in the doctrine of salvation about the incapacity of orthodox jews to find salvation from their beliefs, and what, on the undesputed historical record, the Catholic church did to the jews in response to this doctrine and account in the Gospels.
...continuing on: have I misrepresented the churches abysmal history of anti-jewish propaganda, laws and practices, which still existed when Hitler came to power, and were still imbedded in catholic doctrine afterwards? Have I misrepresented the fact the while PIUS was anti-semitic, like his church, he was also, like his church, not willing to offer blanket opposition to anti-jewish laws?
Do you think a serial killer should be let go free because he isn't responsible for all murders everywhere?
I did not say that. I said to read what it says in Matthew about the blood guilt of the jews, And what it says in the doctrine of salvation about the incapacity of orthodox jews to find salvation from their beliefs, and what, on the undesputed historical record, the Catholic church did to the jews in response to this doctrine and account in the Gospels.
No, you said, in response to the question "So in your opinion who is to blame for killing Jesus Christ?": "Romans, of course--contrary to anything Matthew or John might have said."
Were Christians justified in doing harm to Jews because of the accounts in Matthew and John? Of course not. Does that mean that the accounts in Matthew and John are necessarily false? No.
Nobody, including the Vatican's biblical scholars, who is not loopy, thinks the Bible is literally the Word of God--it is an account of events by a bunch of humans. If that were so--there should have been hysterical opposition to the King James translation.
Rectifying some overboard language that everyone knows is a sack of lying BS caused by a discreditable agenda is not beyond consideration.
This does not constitute advice not to read what Matthew says. It is, in fact, my point, which you are having a hard time getting to, that you should read Matthew and see what it says, and recognize that it is a purposefully false account intended to blame jews for something romans did.
Indeed. But they did.
Does that mean that the accounts in Matthew and John are necessarily false?
No. The falsity of the jewish denigrations in Matthew and John stand or fall on their own merits. Later responses to them are irrelevant in this regard. We don't assess truth through popularity contests.
So like I said, you think we should ignore Matthew's account--because it's "false."
You are, of course, entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion that Matthew's account is "purposefully false" and intended to blame Jews for something Romans did. And I am entitled to my opinion that you are divorced from reality.
I do think the christians of the 1st crusade who murdered all the jews in their way, and all the cristians who came streaming out of church after holy week sermons from John and Matthew, and proceeded to murder all the jews in their local ghettos were savages by any reasonable definition.
But I don't think the christians who supported Hitler and the SS were "savage maniacs". Why should I think modern ones are? You don't need to be a savage to kill people if you own tanks and airplanes and zyklon B production plants. You can kill in a very civilized and restrained manner--almost offhandedly--almost neglegently.
Are you planning on seeing The Passion?
Of course, how could I resist now?
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.