Posted on 08/07/2003 5:56:58 PM PDT by DPB101
Anti-Defamation League Note: This op-ed originally appeared in the New York Sun on August 4, 2003.
Discussions about Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie "The Passion" have taken a disturbing turn. Rather than focusing on an effort to find out whether Mr. Gibson is making a movie on the death of Jesus that is consistent with church teachings and free of the anti-Semitism that haunted passion dramas for centuries, the very raising of questions is now being depicted as a part of the culture wars that have overwhelmed American society in recent years.
Movie critic Michael Medved put the issue in the context of "liberal activists, who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." And Kathie Lee Gifford writes that Mr. Gibson "is being so tormented for something that he has every right to do - as an artist in a free country where he is supposed to have the freedom to express and practice his own faith."
This is a strange and unfortunate reaction to the legitimate questions that have been raised. Let us remember that the Catholic church itself and Pope John Paul II, hardly a liberal, revolutionized centuries-old teachings about Jews and Judaism related to the death of Jesus. Recognition by the Vatican of the devastating effects of church teachings about Jews - blaming Jews for the crucifixion, delegitimizing Judaism as a religion, not speaking clearly against anti-Semitism - created new Church doctrine which has transformed Catholic-Jewish relations.
Whether one is conservative or liberal, indeed whatever ones views concerning which is best for American society, the issue of portraying the death of Jesus as a Jewish crime has long been rejected.
Why have we been raising questions as to whether Mr. Gibson's movie may be returning to outmoded, dangerous views of the Jewish role in the death of Jesus?
First, because there has been a long history of the passion story i.e., the trials, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, being interpreted as holding the Jewish people responsible for killing Jesus.
According to this interpretation, both the Jews at the time of Jesus and the Jewish people for all time bear a divine curse for the sin of deicide. Throughout nearly 1,900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred and violence against Jews of Europe and America, and various forms of anti-Semitic expression. Historically, Holy Week (the week leading up to Easter Sunday) was a period when Jews were most vulnerable and when Christians perpetrated some of the worst violence against their Jewish neighbors.
In 1965, at the Second Vatican Council in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church took formal steps to correct this interpretation of the passion. In its document, Nostra Aetate, the Church officially repudiated both the deicide charge and all forms of anti-Semitism. Most Protestant churches followed suit, and since 1965 many Christians have worked cooperatively with Jews to correct anti-Semitic interpretations within Christian theology. Understanding the influential role that passion plays have exercised in the spread of anti-Semitism, the Catholic Church today urges great caution in all dramatic presentations of the passion to ensure that they not furnish any impetus for anti-Semitic attitude or behavior.
In 1988, the Catholic United States Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs issued a pamphlet, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion," which stresses that passion plays must avoid caricatures of Jews and falsely opposing Jews and Jesus. It quotes Pope John Paul II's statement that, "Catholic teaching should aim to present Jews and Judaism in an honest and objective manner, free from prejudices and without and offenses." The pamphlet concludes that correct Catholic teaching of the passion is one that portrays Jews accurately, sensitively and positively, because "the Church and the Jewish people are linked together essentially on the level of identity."
Second, a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars of the first century examined a draft of the screenplay of the film. In the words of Paula Fredrickson, one of the scholars, "the script, when we got it, shocked us." She noted that the scholars "pinpointed its historical errors and - again, since Mr. Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism - its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation."
She went on to say: "That script - and, on the evidence, the film -- presents neither a true rendition of the gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest.… The true historical framing of Mr. Gibson's script is neither early first century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the last first-century Mediterranean dispora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe."
Third, because Mr. Gibson, a "traditionalist" Catholic, has expressed strong criticisms of the modern church and is supportive of views of church policy that question or reject the many 20th-century changes, including the revolution in attitudes toward Jews beginning with Nostra Aetate in 1965.
This combination of history, an early version of the script, and reports about Mr. Gibson's views understandably raised concerns. We have not, however, reached conclusions about the film because we haven't seen it and because the producers say they have made changes. We have, instead, asked the producers for an opportunity to see a preview of the film. If our concerns would turn out to be unjustified, we will be eager to say so. If problems remain, we will be happy share our suggestions with Mr. Gibson.
In a world when anti-Semitism has undergone a frightening resurgence, one of the hopeful perspectives is the fact that the Church has changed so dramatically. We urge the makers of "The Passion" to continue this important progress that has benefited Christians and Jews.
Exactly when was the last outbreak of anti-Jewish violence during Holy Week in America? From the the tone of this article, one would assume it was in the last few years. I may have missed it.
Really. It sounds like when the feminists whine that more women get beat up on super bowl sunday than any other day.
I think it is as clear as can be to everyone that Mr. Foxman is just trying to stir up a bogeyman for his fundraising purposes.
Foxman ought to sign up for some lessons on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To wit:
1. The Catholic Church cannot "create new Church doctrine."
2. As some folks here on FreeRepublic have pointed out, even elderly Catholics today cannot remember ever being taught any of those silly things about Judaism.
the topic: PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN- What exactly does it mean?
Guest for the evening is Bill Murray of the Family Research Council
PLUS – A call from McClintock Campaign Headquarters!
FWIW David Horowitz likes the film and it may be good for all I know. But meanwhile we can count on you going ballistic when some Jew speaks up against it. You are absolutely obsessed with Jewish negative reaction to this film. What do you want to do them? Squash them? This is what you try to do via your numerous posts on this subject
I call a spade a spade here and you know it.
Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, which is about the last twelve hours of Christ's life is the object of campaign villification and book burning by a committee of Christians and Jews who want to shut it down before it is shown, or edit it to their own politically (or religiously) correct standards. Paula Fredriksen is a spokesman for this committee. The New Republic has shamed itself by printing her ill-informed and bigoted attack on the film. Unlike Fredriksen and others who want to destroy film before they have seen it, I have. It is not an attempt to portray the historical Jesus -- which is the subject of Fredriksen's entire screed -- nor could it be. By Fredriksen's own account there is no evidentiary basis for such a portrait and if anyone tried to create one it would be eviscerated by the same Savanarolas, precisely because no one can know what the truth is. Gibson's film is an artistic vision and must be judged that way. Like others who have seen the film, I am sworn to keep details confidential so that it gets its chance when the distributors present it to the viewing public next Easter. However, I will say this: It is an awesome artifact, an overpowering work. I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is extremely painful to watch and yet the violence is never gratuitous. You never feel like you want to take your eyes off the screen. It is a wracking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience as art can get. It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Fredericksen whose only familiarity with The Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. But yes the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?). But all this is to miss the point. This is a Christian parable. The cruelty, intolerance and lack of compassion of human beings is limitless -- and we who have lived through the Twentieth Century know this all too well. The moral of this Christian story -- of Mel Gibson's film -- is that we all killed Jesus -- Jew and Gentile alike -- and tortured him, and we do so every day. But if you believe the vision that Gibson has rendered so searingly and so well, Jesus forgives us for that very act. Whosoever will give up cruelty and love his brother will enter paradise. That is the message that Gibson has framed in his extraordinary work. The effort to shut down his film before it opens is just another station of the cross.
|
||||
That's a legitimate criticism, but you have to admit: there are a number of liberal jews that see swastikas in their cereal bowls and Nazis in every closet.
Rather than focusing on an effort to find out whether Mr. Gibson is making a movie on the death of Jesus that is consistent with church teachings and free of the anti-Semitism that haunted passion dramas for centuries, the very raising of questions is now being depicted as a part of the culture wars that have overwhelmed American society in recent years. [And rightly so --the liebral bastards don't like it when their covers are pulled-- and that is why this author tries to legitimize his lickspittle as 'not of the culture war'.]
…
And Kathie Lee Gifford writes that Mr. Gibson "is being so tormented for something that he has every right to do - as an artist in a free country where he is supposed to have the freedom to express and practice his own faith."
This is a strange and unfortunate reaction to the legitimate questions that have been raised. [The questions are legitimate to the liberal bilge spitters only!]
It is the typical technique of liberals to try and legitimize their perspective by questioning any delegitimization to their lickspittle as they set out to spread their lickspittle, and that is the precise approach this 'journalist/op-ed writer' has taken to start his stealth hit-piece.
This is true of history. Holding the Jewish people exclusively responsible for killing Jesus is anti-semitism, imho.
It is not true of the New Testament account. The writer of the gospel of John is a Jew. He says that the "Jews" clamored for Jesus' crucifixion. We're told that Mary is a Jew, Peter is a Jew, Nicodemus is a Jew, etc., etc. At this point, practically all followers of Jesus are Jews. None of them were clamoring for Jesus' crucifixion.
John's use of the word "Jews" was a euphemism for the political leaders. (Perhaps it was derogatory...sarcasm about how they exalted themselves above the common folk.) In any case, it was understood by those who heard it.
Those who don't understand that Jesus is a Jew, really cannot understand that a nexus of leaders had Jesus killed.
But the bible tells a deeper story, actually.
It says that the death of Jesus really belongs at the doorstep of each of us. Our sin put Him on the cross.
As Peter would say of Jesus dying for Peter's own sin, "Not for ours only, but also for the sin of the whole world."
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.