Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[Torie]

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed your thoughtful and introspective posts. One of the grand things about Christianity is its emphasis on introspection, and I admire it. I will be back on some thread when I have seen the film. I may even post a vanity on it. After all, near atheist WASPS are thin on the ground around here.

[sfRummygirl]

"I'm trying to sow tolerance and sanity"

Balogna. And not the fat-free kind.

[Romulus]

So what you mean is that I am doomed to eternal damnation unless I accept as the truth what you do. That's what you mean right?

Can't speak for others on this thread, but fyi what the Catholic Church teaches is that all salvation is through, with, and in Jesus. The Church does not teach that those who don't know Jesus are inevitably damned, however. We are content with the idea that God is merciful and that his salvation is not absolutely foreclosed from those who love the truth and pursue it conscientiously and with purity of heart. How salvation may come to such people is largely a mystery, but while we declare the substantial impediments facing those who lack the fullness of faith, we do not deny the theoretical possibility that they may be saved. What we do declare OTOH is that no one who rejects Christianity after having been persuaded in conscience of its truthfulness can be saved -- not because God is spiteful but because he's faithful to his own creation of us as images of him posessing freedom to choose between life and death. God being the ultimate truth, whoever knowingly rejects the truth rejects God and his gifts.

[Torie]

with what might be viewed as conviction and regret

What exactly are you trying to tell me in response to my query?

[Abundy]

I enjoyed the discussion as well. If you don't mind, I'd love a ping post-viewing. Or, if you'd rather discuss your thoughts off-line (hey, I know it can get a little hairy aroung here at times) just Freepmail me...

Now I think I'm going to try and get some sleep...

[sfRummygirl]

"Christians as Christians have been Jew haters."

Hey, it must be Inyokern! I know that hatred anywhere!

Wow.

[Coleus]

NJ Catholic priest was so appalled by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ'' that he described the film as "religious barbarism.'' "I saw it as religious barbarism ... in my opinion, God did not send his son to die,''

[Torie]

What of those who "know" Jesus, but disagree with his divinity? Is the word "know" mean having been exposed to, or does "know" mean having experienced a leap of faith, and then one acts in defiance of His authority with mens rea? I thought the traditional teaching was the former, in which event, I'm going to hell, without passing go. Has the Catholic Church really made this otherwise vague ambiguity cyrstal clear now?

[Cold Heat]

Now I think I'm going to try and get some sleep...

Ditto, I am too!

[Pelham]

Matthew is. X 34

[sfRummygirl]

Funny, you used to complain that you were afraid that this movie would incite anti-semite hatred.
Since it hasn't, now you are taking the position that you 'just want everyone to make sure that we all know all Christians are not in agreement with this movie'.
My, how wonderful of you. Next time my church has a board meeting, can you come? Because out of a hundred Christians, if one complains, I want to make sure you hear it. Since you are so concerned about us being in all agreement now. Really, because then you could use it to further your cause.

[Sabertooth]

What exactly are you trying to tell me in response to my query?

Only that the cinematic license taken with the figure of Caiaphus was not one-dimensional.

[SoCar]

I know they think that it is an act of love. At the same time I respect it, it infuriates me to no end. I would never presume that my beliefs were so "right" that all others that did not agree were doomed to eternal damnation no matter how well they lived their life on earth.

No matter how they phrase it, their religious beliefs come off as intolerant, unaccepting, and completely condescending, I will continue to speak out as long as the Christians I mostly agree with begin to sound similar to fundamentalist Muslims. And sometimes they do.

[ultima ratio]

"All I know from the above is the Vatican II conference did away with Jews as Christ killers. Even if this this was perpetrated locally and not directly from Rome (the Vatican). And was not Church doctrine. If this is wrong then please explain."

First, Vatican II did not say that the Jews did not instigate Christ's death. It said the notion of collective guilt for all Jews was wrong and forbidden. Those are two different ideas. Second, Vatican II DID NOT EXONERATE the Jews of 33 A.D. The Council merely repeated what the Church had often stated before. The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century made the very same point--that there could be no question of collective guilt for Jews because of Christ's death, that ALL MEN were guilty for it. This was why it has been a slander to suggest that because Mel Gibson rejects Vatican II, somehow he rejects its statement on the Jews. He rejected the Council for other reasons. Its statement on the Jews--that they could not be held guilty collectively--was traditional and acceptable to all traditionalists. Moreover, it was his hand holding the nail for the Crucifixion--signifying his own guilt and affirming Trent's decree of universal guilt. All Christians can identify with that gesture.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Everyone is convinced they are "right" and all others must accept what they believe or suffer the eternal consequences.

You don't believe you're right? Honestly?

The Muslims want to kill me and the Christians want to pray for my soul or better yet convert me.

Then it seems obvious who you should fear. HINT: It isn't the Christians.

I'm a born-again Christian. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses want to convert me. It won't happen, but I realize that the reason they approach me is a sincere, loving one, so I don't let it raise my blood pressure.

It's really not that big of a deal.

[sfRummygirl]

"What is going to be the response when the predicted wave of anti-semitism never happens?"

What's going to happen? We get to hear a bunch of REALLY annoying non-Christians now tell us what our true theology is. And how this movie was unbiblically correct. And then they will try to divide us.

Don't fall for it.

[Wormwood]

I'm a born-again Christian. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses want to convert me. It won't happen, but I realize that the reason they approach me is a sincere, loving one, so I don't let it raise my blood pressure. It's really not that big of a deal.

Good point.

Oh, and the radical Muslims? They want to kill Christians too.

Now that's annoying.

[Torie]

I don't know. How could I know what is in his heart and mind? To assert I did, whould exhibit not only hubris, but my own insanity.

I suspect he really believed he was who the scriptures claimed he was, putting aside the resurrection leap of faith, which came after the Christ's corporeal existence was extirpated. Very charismatic men sometimes believe that. It is particurlaly a viable hypothesis to me from one with a revolutionary and seminal message, that moves the human condition forward with an ethos of kindness and civility and pluralism. Without that ethos, the rebirth of the West, and particularly the Enlightenment, could not have occurred. The lights would have been kept off for far longer than they were.

[Torie]

I understand. I further understand it is easier without animus to sluff off religious proselytizing as a non-believer in religion, than a believer in another religion. I really do. I hope however you get over your anger. It is a waste of energy in negative rather than positive directions. JMO.

[sfRummygirl]

You know, Christians could easily b-tch and moan about all the communists, then and now, that are very largely of Jewish ancestory.
Oh, God, but this is what the commie pigs want. See, look at the bastards on this thread who are here to insite just this. They troll every stinkin' thread about this movie, and purposely try to do just this.
They aren't going to be happy until there is one case of anti-semitism in the world, in the next week. Except in the middle east, of course. Because most of them support Palestine.

Ok, breathe....breathe...remember that being Christian didn't mean it was going to be easy....there ya go rummygirl....