Analyze that, amateur shrink.
You are normally quite rational. Here, you entered a discussion of the movie's content by commenting on Gibson's motive. Which motive, of course, is only discernible from (by now) widely known facts.
It was an irrational comment, which always says more about the subject than the object.
You attacked him, I called you on it. You're wrong.
In subsequent comments, we learn the following:
1. You think he is schismatic
2. You think his father is a nutty anti-semite
3. You think the movie is probably too gory,and
4. erroneously based on the visions of a nun, though
5. you HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE.
I don't dispute 1 and 2. I just think your opinion of Gibson's motives is colored by your obvious dislike of his religious views, his father, his taste in devotional literature, and your own conclusions about a movie YOU HAVE NOT SEEN.
My acuity as an amateur psychologist I would, at this point in our discussion, submit to any jury in the land. I will only add that I analyzed your motive with far more personal interaction and evidence available to me than you had to perform a similar but more snap analysis on Gibson.
If I've been unfair to you, then BY YOUR ARGUMENT you owe him apologies and reparations.
I rest.