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, well, mine, and the preponderance of catholic historical scholars, and every other kind of scholar. It is obvious that Matthew's account is purposefully false. It takes rocks in the head, or a lying agenda, to suggest that anything but roman political prudence killed jesus. That is, plain as day, NOT what matthew reports. He reports that ALL the jews said "HIS BLOOD BE UPON US...". All the jesuistic ways that have been thought of to try to turn this into something else other than what it says have, I am safe in saying, now been exhausted, except in the minds of catholicisms most zanily ardent defenders. Including the "oh, well, them jews were just mistaken" tact. If they were mistaken, there's little point in reporting it--it was just crowd noise. It is reported because Matthew wants to make a point. And what would that point be?
I am hung up on the sins of the past because I don't want to see the same sins recurring in the future. Since I am, at present, underwhelmed by institutional attempts to see this made so, your advice is poorly received.
The banner on this web site says: "Journal of religion and public life". What did I ask you for?
This is not a review of "Hitler's Willing Executioner's"
James Carroll is a self loathing liberal Catholic.
So?
Preponderance of Catholic historical scholars? Like who?
It is obvious that Matthew's account is purposefully false.
It must be true because you say it's "obvious." How can I resist that kind of logic?
It takes rocks in the head, or a lying agenda, to suggest that anything but roman political prudence killed jesus.
You got me there. I'm a rock-headed liar to disagree with you, and so are the evangelists and the fathers of the Church and millions of Christians and non-Christians.
That is, plain as day, NOT what matthew reports.
What is not what Matthew reports?
He reports that ALL the jews said "HIS BLOOD BE UPON US...".
All the Jews there, not all Jews everywhere at all time.
All the jesuistic ways
Jesuitic as in the Jesuits, or Jesuitic as in Jesus? Nevermind.
that have been thought of to try to turn this into something else other than what it says
Hey, you're the one reading something into a historical account, not me.
have, I am safe in saying, now been exhausted,
Well, if you're safe in saying so, it must be true.
except in the minds of catholicisms most zanily ardent defenders.
All those who disagree with you are, ipso facto, zanily ardent defenders of Catholicism. Your ad hominum attack has made me see the errors of my ways...
Including the "oh, well, them jews were just mistaken" tact. If they were mistaken, there's little point in reporting it--it was just crowd noise. It is reported because Matthew wants to make a point. And what would that point be?
Ummm, because they said it? Just because I say "I'd give my right arm for a brew" does not mean I'm willing to sacrifice a limb for a beer.
This is fun and everything, but I'm starting to feel like I'm teasing a caged animal. Go forth, secure in your conspiracy theories. God bless you.
Well, that's loud of you, but my evidence is quite clear and mostly stands unrefuted, in fact, mostly unaddressed, on the major points. No sensible historian thinks the church is blameless for the plight of the jews in christian europe, up to and including the Holocaust. No sensible historian thinks there is no connection between church doctrine and the Gospels, and the behaviors and policies of the Church toward jews. No sensible historian thinks that there wasn't a vicious and prevailing streak of anti-semitism to be found in northern european jews for the nazi's to exploit to gain support for their anti-jewish agenda. There is no serious dispute as to whether or not the church turned over documents to the SS to ferret out jews with, no serious scholar disputes what the prelates of Slovokia did in aid of the holocaust. No serious scholar, including avid supporters of PIUS XII think he was bold and timely in condemning any of the things I've listed here in specific language--whether, in their opinions, for good or ill.
Show me where Matthew says--"all the jews there.
Indeed, your responses have the sort of random, non-tracking patter one sees in teasing. To move beyond that, you'd have to produce a response that somehow attempts to refute something I've said.
No, I am not, I am reading what it says. You are interpolating things it does not say, such as: "All the jews there..."
Show me where Matthew says--"all the jews there.
Oh, right. Matthew's sources heard every Jew in the world, simultaneously, say the exact same thing.
Read Matthew 27:20: "The chief high priests and priests incited the crowds to ask for Barabbas, Jesus however, they intended to kill." It was this crowd that said in Matthew 27:25 "His blood be upon us and upon our children" in response to Pilate washing his hands of Jesus's blood.
Your denial is impressively complete.
Odd, If looked high and low for this "round repudiation" in the mainstream press, and cannot seem to locate it, all I can find is respectful treatment from the mainstream press, and advocate press whining about some obscure source or another which she failed to find, a few complaints about her assessment of the weight of one fact or another, and just two minor factual mis-statements, not committed by here knowingly, so far.
Perhaps you can give us a few specific cites we can read?
Now who's interpolating? If all the jews "who were there" cursed their children, than ALL the jews were cursed by 414ad, anyway, so this is an irrelevant defense.
What that incited was the cry "give us barabbus". The blood curse remains a spontaneous and unlikely event to report, unless you have an iron in the fire.
414 AD? I miss your point. Anyway, like I said, just because they said it does not meant (1) They really meant it, or (2) They actually were cursed.
What that incited was the cry "give us barabbus".
Sigh. Wrong again. Here is the whole section, Matthew 27:15-25:
15 Now on the occasion of the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the crowd one prisoner whom they wished.
16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called (Jesus) Barabbas.
17 So when they had assembled, Pilate said to them, "Which one do you want me to release to you, (Jesus) Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?"
18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had handed him over.
19 While he was still seated on the bench, his wife sent him a message, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man. I suffered much in a dream today because of him."
20 The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas but to destroy Jesus.
21 The governor said to them in reply, "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" They answered, "Barabbas!"
22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!"
23 But he said, "Why? What evil has he done?" They only shouted the louder, "Let him be crucified!"
24 When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. Look to it yourselves."
25 And the whole people said in reply, "His blood be upon us and upon our children."
The blood curse remains a spontaneous and unlikely event to report, unless you have an iron in the fire.
Since when does spontenaity and unlikeliness render something less noteworthy rather than more? "Man bites dog," anyone?
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.