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

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 11-03-03

[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.

[jscd3]

So...you find one lapsed catholic ...

So you see, Campion, unless you provide a fully exhaustive documentary list proving that every member of the SS who was ever related to a Catholic specifically denounced the Faith in writing, you will not impress little donh. And remember, no hearsay on this, it needs to be in an authenticated diary to satisfy mr don. After all, he has pretty high standards; a lot higher than Einstein's or any of the Jewish leaders who actually existed at the time and lived through the Holocoust, for exmple...

Like I posted earlier, Campion, donh is the anti-catholic version of a DU disrupter. Anyone reading the documentation posted by you, Qwinn, and others will be impressed by the depth of your evidence and the rather shrill nature of the attack...

[Qwinn]

We have indeed adressed those issues.

We -have- pointed out repeatedly is that there is no other leader in Europe that condemned Hitler in 1941-1942. Pius was the only one who -wasn't- silent. You simply ignore this as irrelevant.

But since you are such a -fair- individual, then I would like to see you going around various websites and condemn the International Red Cross as well.

"The drama faced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, with its seat likewise in Geneva, is perhaps even more striking. The Committee is officially charged by international agreement with supervising the application of the Red Cross Conventions on Prisoners of War. But the needs of civilian internees (read, Jews) increasingly alarmed the members of the committee. The Red Cross had no real knowledge of the extermination camps at this time (in the autumn of 1942) but the harshness of German procedures, and even more so the sinister disappearance of so many thousands into the maw of deportation, suggested the necessity of an open and public protest on the part of the Committee. With profound regret, the Geneva Red Cross decided that a public protest, a) would have no effect, b) would compromise what real good the Committee was already doing for the internees, without benefit of public declarations. And indeed in the following war years, the International Committee of the Red Cross was able to achieve a great deal in its efforts at alleviating suffering."

Just as the Church did. No Jews condemned the Red Cross. All Jews alive at the time recognized the absolute need for pro-Jewish voices to not speak publically against Hitler for fear of compromising their ability to aid Jews privately. The Pope was the ONLY agency in Europe to speak openly against Hitler for several years -anyway-, as noted by Albert Einstein.

Tell me, if you were hiding half a dozen Jews in your basement during the War, would you have gone out into the street and railed at injustices of Hitler? You'd be a nominee for the Darwin Award, and there'd be 6 more dead Jews.

"He should have spoken out more!" So should everyone else. He spoke out more than anyone else. Why is the one guy who did more than anyone else the one who gets the most blame?

"He could have done more!" Well, yes. This is an irrefutable charge that can be made against anyone in any situation that manages to survive. Why are you reading this thread instead of helping the homeless? Hmmm. It seems you are indifferent to the plight of the homeless. I don't care if you go out and help the homeless 3 times a week and twice on Sundays, you are not there now so you could be doing more. Therefore, you are callous and indifferent.

This is the way all good propaganda works. Anyone could -always- do more. How else do you condemn a genuine hero?

Qwinn

[donh]

.would be a good trick if it were true, since about half of the German army, like the German population, would have been catholic."

Aaaah I see, so now the agitprop is Catholics -were- Nazis. Uh huh. Hitler too!

Yes, I believe Hitler was a nazi.

Reciting the novena over and over as they gassed Jews, they were.

No, but probably during their mass absolutions afterwards, administered by catholic SS priests.

No evidence actually required on that one.

Actually, we have numerous pictures of priests in SS camps granting absolution, giving nazi salutes, and attending to military functions in their official robes. To no one's great surprise.

I see the picture of Hitler praying posted all over anti-Pius sites to prove it... the source of the picture? Why, Hitler's own photo-op propaganda, of course!

Uh huh. And why is it, do you suppose, that the nazi's felt that this would make good propaganda?

The undisputed, and totally unsurprising facts are as follows: polls of the german population before and after WWII made about half of the german population to be practicing catholic, and most of the rest lutheran.--the only other group of historically rabid christian jew-haters that outshone the catholics in their venom. For a really good time, try Martin Luther on the subject of jews.

Do you think they all stopped going to mass while Hitler was in power? If you do, you don't know much about catholics.

[Qwinn]

Still waiting for you to rail against the Red Cross for their silence, despite their legal duty to "speak out".

Qwinn

[donh]

But since you are such a -fair- individual, then I would like to see you going around various websites and condemn the International Red Cross as well.

The red cross is not Jesus' Voice on earth.

[Qwinn]

"Actually, we have numerous pictures of priests in SS camps granting absolution, giving nazi salutes, and attending to military functions in their official robes. To no one's great surprise."

Yes, Hitler would never stoop so low as to put his soldiers in the dress of a Bishop and take pictures. He is in fact the source of those pictures - do you deny this?

I'm not saying there couldn't have been individual priests who broke with the public Church stand and sided with Hitler, quite possibly for fear of their lives. But if there were, they were ignoring the express orders of the Church when they did so. That does not indict Catholics as a whole.

Meanwhile, all the actual Catholic printing presses that were printing scathing attacks on Hitler and racism were shut down. This is a fact reported by the New York Times. Since the Catholics were whole-hog for the Nazis as you suggest, why would these be printed? Why were encyclicals from the Pope being dropped by the Allies into Germany?

Those Catholics that were anti-Semitic did so because they blamed the sins of a handful of Jews on -all- the Jews. Those Catholics are rightly condemned. What's so freaking -sad- though is how those doing the condemning are doing exactly the same thing - blaming -all- Catholics for the sins of the few.

They practice what they condemn. Their mindset is indistinguishable from those they rail against.

Qwinn

[donh]

We have indeed adressed those issues.

No. Not one of these specific points have been adequately addresses.

We -have- pointed out repeatedly is that there is no other leader in Europe that condemned Hitler in 1941-1942. Pius was the only one who -wasn't- silent. You simply ignore this as irrelevant.

I simply ignore it as misleading and incorrect.

by xmas of 1942 the handwriting was on the wall, and everybody was piling onto Hitler. It was before 1939, with the war in doubt, and with the holocaust being prepped or executed that the silence hurt.

And during this time, many leaders were appalled by Hitler--at dinner parties, in semi-formal matters of tangential moment, under the cups to their spouses. Much as Pius was in the cites that have been offered up here. At the risk of repeating myself--it is not the job of the Voice of Jesus to natter about poo-poo'ing. It is the job of the Voice of Jesus to put matters of prudence and politics aside and speak moral truth loud and clear about matters of terrrible moment.

[donh]

Yes, Hitler would never stoop so low as to put his soldiers in the dress of a Bishop and take pictures. He is in fact the source of those pictures - do you deny this?

That's a pitiful argument. Every western army has priests accompanying their troops. What suggests to you that Germany, the heart northern european Catholicism for 400 years, would be any different?

[donh]

I'm not saying there couldn't have been individual priests who broke with the public Church stand and sided with Hitler, quite possibly for fear of their lives. But if there were, they were ignoring the express orders of the Church when they did so. That does not indict Catholics as a whole.

You will not find a record of catholic priests being forbidden to give sacrament to the SS. Given that they were not excommunicated, that would have been a pretty unlikely thing for the catholic church to have ordered. That would have also been a fairly blatant violation of the accords signed by Pius XII, now wouldn't it?

[Qwinn]

I am used to dealing with these anti-Pius agitprop hacks. There is a single theme that is so predictable it is hilarious.

They walk into the thread screaming that Pius XII was silent. If no one around knows enough real history, great, success, their work is done. If someone -does- know enough history and can completely rip that ridiculous statement apart, then it always switches, without missing a step, to blaming the German Catholic population. They never acknowledge that what they said about Pius XII was indisputably false, they just switch to the general population so they can keep making Catholics look bad. Because unless you can account for every German Catholic's behavior, there's no way to prove anything they claim is wrong.

So they walk in with their game plan all laid out, and will make their accusations more general and more general, as needed depending upon how educated the population is, until they're effectively meaningless. This is classic Pravda style, it's right out of 1984.

Note that they're not blaming Germans. They're blaming Catholics. It would be just as appropriate to rail at all Germans. Blaming Catholics actually makes far less sense than blaming Germans, considering how many millions of Polish Catholics died at Nazi hands. But no one does that anymore. People are intelligent enough to not blame Germans today for what the Nazis did. But "the" Catholics? You know, like "the" Jews? They're still the vilest group of people around.

Fact is, buddy, your claims about the German population fall on deaf ears because you've already discredited yourself on your Pius smears.

But you're doing the folk at ANSWER a great service, donh. You should be proud.

Qwinn

[donh]

Meanwhile, all the actual Catholic printing presses that were printing scathing attacks on Hitler and racism were shut down.

Church presses, and not ALL catholic presses, if you are referring to the previously cited incident.

This is a fact reported by the New York Times. Since the Catholics were whole-hog for the Nazis as you suggest,

I have not suggested this. But I have suggested that many catholics hated jews, and were egged on by church doctrine, none of which, is not particularly at issue amongst historians.

Those Catholics that were anti-Semitic did so because they blamed the sins of a handful of Jews on -all- the Jews. Those Catholics are rightly condemned. What's so freaking -sad- though is how those doing the condemning are doing exactly the same thing - blaming -all- Catholics for the sins of the few.

I have not blamed ALL christians. I have, rightly, blamed christian doctrine for much of the harm that has befallen the jews at the hands of incensed christians over the last 1400 years, including during the holocaust.

They practice what they condemn. Their mindset is indistinguishable from those they rail against.

My mindset is distinguisable from mass murderers and those that abet them.

[sobieski]

You don't know much real history. The Nazi's killed three million Polish Christian non-combatants, yet there's no indication that his policies were anti-Christian. 75% of Poland's clergy was killed; was he anti-Priest?

[Qwinn]

"by xmas of 1942 the handwriting was on the wall, and everybody was piling onto Hitler. It was before 1939, with the war in doubt, and with the holocaust being prepped or executed that the silence hurt.

Before 1939, Pius XII wasn't Pope. He became Pope -in- 1939.

However, before 1939, the man who later became Pius XII spoke out through Pius XI, condemned anti-Semitism and racism on dozens of occassions, as I have already posted a dozen examples of on this thread.

Do you even read anything anyone responds to you? Or are you just hoping that other people didn't, so that they won't realize that you're still saying things that have already been proven wrong?

Qwinn

[donh]

am used to dealing with these anti-Pius agitprop hacks.

by ignoring them, apparently. Could you please suggest why anyone should think that there weren't priests accompanying the SS? Or is it your plan to just take a pass, and go back to just being generally pissy when it comes to the actual details of history?

[Qwinn]

"You don't know much real history. The Nazi's killed three million Polish Christian non-combatants, yet there's no indication that his policies were anti-Christian. 75% of Poland's clergy was killed; was he anti-Priest?"

Actually, yes he was. It is part of the historical record that prisoners who went into the extermination camps were told: If you are a Jew, you will die by the end of the month. Catholic Priests, 3 months. Everyone else, 5 months.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Oh, by the way, I posted somewhere above Hitler's actual words on Christianity, excerpted from a book called "Conversations with Hitler".

Qwinn

[sobieski]

For one, because the Nazi's were busy killing priests. Didn't you ever hear of St. Maximillian Kolbe?

[Qwinn]

"Could you please suggest why anyone should think that there weren't priests accompanying the SS?"

ROFL!!!!

I have to prove Catholics DIDN'T help the SS before you prove they did?!

How about you prove they -were-? And give sources? Or do you think public opinion should just be to -assume- Catholics helped Hitler, and it's up to us to prove it didn't happen?!

MAN, you are hilarious!

Qwinn

[donh]

You don't know much real history. The Nazi's killed three million Polish Christian non-combatants, yet there's no indication that his policies were anti-Christian. 75% of Poland's clergy was killed; was he anti-Priest?

Poland was country with which Germany was at war. Non-combatants get killed in wars. It's not a good thing, but it's not genocide. Genocide is when you kill your brother citizens. By what percentage was the catholic population of europe reduced in the Ovens of Auschwitz?

[Qwinn]

"By what percentage was the catholic population of europe reduced in the Ovens of Auschwitz?"

6 million Jews died in World War II. 9 million Polish died in World War II. Most Polish were Catholic. Do the math.

"It's not a good thing, but it's not genocide."

See, we already have plenty of Catholics in other countries, so we can spare a few million. No biggie.

Qwinn