The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ

I think the idea of the nails in the hands instead of the wrists is hanging around in Catholic theology because of the cases of Stigmata with such people as Francis of Assissi (or however you spell that) and Padre Pio. They probably figure if that is where God himself put the wounds, then who are they to argue.

 

So, in effect, if your heart is pure and your convictions strong, the only other ingredient you need - the most important - is faith in God's love?

E_S

 

The intense scorn and criticism coming from the media and intellectual elite (including The New York Times calling Gibson a 'Jew Baiter' and an Anti-Semite, and Andy Rooney calling Gibson nuts, et cetera) is telling.


I am sorry, but I must disagree. I think you are letting your traditionalist beliefs, and your disdain for the so-called liberal elite intellectual boogy-men get in the way. In much the same way some critics are letting their beliefs get in their way.

I saw the interview Gibson did with Diane Sawyer. As someone with no opinion on the movie either way, and someone without a personal interest in the movie, he came across to me as unstable (ie nuts). Gibson was practically channeling Detective Martin Riggs (his borderline crazy Lethal Weapon character) in half the interview. If he's put that sort of thing crazy Hollywood thing behind him, why was it so evident? He did not strike me as someone at peace with himself, or even someone entirely secure with his religion. He did not come across to me as someone who had any level of inner peace. He was manic in much of the interview, with all the hand waving and jerking about. His really lame attempts at humor indicate someone who isn't entirely comfortable with the subjects -- someone who uses humor to avoid an issue. His most cogent answer, to probably one of the most deeply personal issues, was the one about his father, just saying he wasn't going to go there. The rest of it... no.

Now, maybe he's temporarily "nuts" because of all the movie's pre-release attention. Or maybe he's not.

 

I lost a lot of respect for him when he said his wife was going to Hell because she's a Protestant.

 

I didn't see that interview, Fred, but he did grow up in Australia for a bit. Here, we have an understand of, and affinity for, dry sarcasm which America, as a nation, by and large doesn't get...

E_S

 

It was an article in the USA Today, and he wasn't being sarcastic. I don't remember his statement word for word, but he said something like, "I wish it didn't have to be that way. But you can't get to Heaven if you're outside the [Catholic] Church. That's a pronouncement from the chair, and I go with it."

...which makes me wonder, why the **** did he marry her?

 

That was a misinterpretation about salvation. Gibson is a traditionalist. He rejects the changes made by Vatican2. And its not up to him if his wife makes it to Heaven, its up to God.


I want to see this movie, but I think I'll either wait until the hype calms down or until it comes out on dvd.

 

I lost a lot of respect for him when he said his wife was going to Hell because she's a Protestant.

Which isn't even a Catholic belief, and has never been stated ex cathedra as he said, even prior to Vatican II.

I hate it when people wear their religion on their sleeve-not as in truly being a good rep for one's faith, but when one acts all holier than thou. It's so smug and hateful and exactly what Jesus preached against.

I also think this film is gonna revive the old Catholic morbid streak.

 

...which makes me wonder, why the **** did he marry her?

Maybe she's a rocket in bed?
E_S

 

Ender:

So, in effect, if your heart is pure and your convictions strong, the only other ingredient you need - the most important - is faith in God's love?

Not precisely: I believe that faith in God's grace is sufficient, that it is the only ingredient that is necessary, and God's grace can overcome an impure heart, weak convictions, anything.


Jades, I think you miss the enormity of Andy Rooney's comments.

Pretending to speak for God, Rooney said that God made a mistake when He made Mel Gibson. That is perhaps among the most evil things one person can say to another.

 

Ah, got it Bubba...

E_S

 

Pretending to speak for God, Rooney said that God made a mistake when He made Mel Gibson. That is perhaps among the most evil things one person can say to another


Please explain? Even if he had meant it....why is his statement so 'evil'?
?

 

The statement is evil because, by saying God made a mistake in creating Gibson, Rooney is saying that the universe would be a better place without him -- that he adds nothing of value to the rest of humanity.

If there was ever such a thing as verbal evil -- words that are immoral -- these are it.

 

The New Republic on The Passion of the Christ

E_S

KK EDIT: One of these days, we'll teach you to use markups correctly.

 

Nobody likes a showoff.

E_S

 

I really just can't describe it in words.

It was more than just a movie.

 

The Romans were let off lighter, but Gibson refuses to show that they, also, could hold religious views. The most intelligent Roman (the governor) is shown as being unconvinced by his peoples faith, unable to find "the truth." The grunts and torturers are mindless pagan animals, who finally have to be frightened into accepting God when the skies turn dark and tremors rock the earth.

Which is exactly how it's told in the bible. Pilate didn't want to kill him. It was the Pharisees that called for his death. Pilate gave in because the crowd wanted it and was becoming unruly. And sadly, they realized to late what they had done. I say sadly only because, as a Catholic, I still find it heart wrenching. I know he had to die to free us from our sins, but it is still a horrible thing to have happen.

 

There's no question that Mel Gibson's ingenious marketing campaign paid off. He stirred up as much controversy as he possibly could then sat back and, for example last night on Jay Leno, acted like a bewildered martyr nailed to the cross of the public opinion that his press machine worked so hard to create. And Jay Leno could not have made more of an effort to pander to Gibson's self-aggrandizement. He devoted his entire monologue to the film.

The only thing I can say for the movie is that at least Gibson is honest about embracing the anti-Semitism that still lies at the heart of Christian beliefs. In a way, the movie is doing the world a service by exposing the blatant anti-Semitism of the Christian audiences that are embracing it.

 

In his view of the world, heathen brutes either have the intelligence to percieve that their faith is a sham, or simply go along with it in thuggish apathy

The same could be said about Christianity, could it not?

I.e. as an argument goes, thats just air.

/Z

 

Jabbadabbado, you mind explaining yourself?

In particular, "The only thing I can say for the movie is that at least Gibson is honest about embracing the anti-Semitism that still lies at the heart of Christian beliefs. In a way, the movie is doing the world a service by exposing the blatant anti-Semitism of the Christian audiences that are embracing it."

It seems to me you're calling Christianity and its adherents racist anti-Semites. That's a pretty harsh accusation, and I would like to see some evidence to back it up.

The sooner, the better.

Or if you can't, perhaps you should apologize for slandering so many people with such a vicious accusation, and perhaps you should look at your own heart and see what dark biases you yourself have.

 

Ender, the New Republic article is interesting...

Hypocritical, but interesting nevertheless.

No need to fisk his every point, but let's see how Mr. Wieseltier tries to separate the film from the Gospels and see how he fails.

Gibson is under the impression that he has done nothing more than put God's word into film. No Hollywood insider was ever so inside. "Critics who have a problem with me don't really have a problem with me and this film," he told Diane Sawyer, "they have a problem with the four Gospels." From such a statement it is impossible not to conclude that the man is staggeringly ignorant of his own patrimony. For the Gospels, like all great religious texts, have been interpreted in many different ways, to accommodate the needs and the desires of many different souls; and Gibson's account of these events is, like every other account, a particular construction of them.

Fair enough, but let us see if his complaints are unique to this film's interpretation or whether the complaints ultimately point back to the original sources.

The Passion of the Christ is the work of a religious sensibility of remarkable coarseness. It is by turns grossly physical and grossly magical, childishly literalist, gladly credulous, comically masculine.

"Childishly literalistic." Heaven forbid, Gibson actually made a film that is faithful to the Gospels.

The film ends three days later, when a ray of golden light penetrates the tomb as the stone is rolled away, and the shroud lies empty on the slab, and Jesus is alive again. As he rises to leave, the hole in his hand passes before our eyes. And the sight of the wound is about as moving as the sound of a doctrine. For we know by now that no atrocity has really been committed. All that has taken place is the temporarily discomfiting fulfillment of a divine plan for the redemption of the world. The ending is happy, which has the effect of making the viewer, or at least this viewer, feel like he has been duped.

Interesting, because all four Gospels -- I repeat, all four Gospels -- end with the happy ending of the Resurrection.

Now that Gibson has made the mistake of allowing people to see The Passion of the Christ--the film was much more interesting before it was released--it is plain that the controversy about its inclusion of Matthew 27:25, the infamous cry of the Jews that "his blood be on us and our children," the imprecation that served through the centuries as the warrant for the Christian assault on the Jews, was a fake, a cynical game. When Jewish groups objected to this passage in the script, Gibson expediently deleted the English translation of it. I say expediently, because decency would have prevented him from including it, from shooting it, at all.

Look again at this passage. The author argues that decency would cause a person to immediately excise Matthew 27:25, part of the New Testament text.

Wieseltier's earlier statement bears repeating:

"Critics who have a problem with me don't really have a problem with me and this film," he told Diane Sawyer, "they have a problem with the four Gospels." From such a statement it is impossible not to conclude that the man is staggeringly ignorant of his own patrimony.

But here, he complains that Gibson was too literal with the Gospels, he complains about a happy ending that comes straight from the Gospels, and he argues that no decent person would actually film the Gospels' account of the mob's behavior.

 

It seems to me you're calling Christianity and its adherents racist anti-Semites. That's a pretty harsh accusation, and I would like to see some evidence to back it up

This is amusing to read.

It's like that other thread about Europeans opinions about the actions of the State of Israel. Naturally, sooner, rather than later, if you criticize Israel (which many Europeans, myself included, do), you get labeled "Anti semitic".

This if quite amusing, and I and other europeans even clarified quite clearly multiple times that we honestly do not give a rats rectum about which religious persuasion the people in question happen to have; we have a problem with their politics. If those people doing this particular politics happen to be jews, this is their doing, not ours, and is merely a happenstance.

However, explaining this, amusingly, only makes the critique stronger. "Oh so now you are not just anti-semitic, you are a hypocritical anti semite too". Well duh.

You can have a disagreement with the policies of a government without for that sake have a disagreement with the people of that country, and dragging the analogy to somehow make this disagreement with the policies of a goverment to be magically transformed into a critique of a religion is baffling indeed.

/Z

 

Amusing or not, was it inaccurate? Did I misconstrue what the guy wrote, Zap?

 

I think you did. I'm saying that The Passion of the Christ overtly embraces the more anti-Semitic undertones of the New Testament and of Christianity itself (one of Christianity's worst flaws over the past 2000 years and one which continues to linger and mar the faith like a cancerous growth), and that embracing this movie as a great film is like a ratification of that anti-Semitic undercurrent.

At least the Vatican understands that and that's why they pulled back from any kind of endorsement of the movie. That speaks well for Catholic leadership at least.

Now I'd like to see more fundamentalist Christians come out and recognize the movie's flawed and stereotypical rendering of Jews in accordance with the most regretable elements of the New Testament.

And if you say, well, that's what the gospels say, then I say the gospels endorse and promote anti-Semitism.

 

Jabba:

I think you did. I'm saying that The Passion of the Christ overtly embraces the more anti-Semitic undertones of the New Testament and of Christianity itself (one of Christianity's worst flaws over the past 2000 years and one which continues to linger and mar the faith like a cancerous growth), and that embracing this movie as a great film is like a ratification of that anti-Semitic undercurrent.

I said, "It seems to me you're calling Christianity and its adherents racist anti-Semites."

How is that misconstruing?


And, what anti-Semitic undertones? The fact that the New Testament asserts that God became a Jew doesn't seem anti-Semitic. That God Incarnate chose 12 Jews as the founders of His church doesn't seem anti-Semetic.

Have Christians exhibited racism towards Jews? Yes, shamefully, but it's been contrary to the clear message of our canon.

You think otherwise? Prove it.

The sooner, the better.


EDIT: If you're going to say that the behavior of the Jewish crowd in the Passion story proves anti-Semitism, I must ask two things.

First, is it necessarily anti-Semetic to report the behavior of people who happen to be Jewish if that report casts them in negative light?

Second, is the OLD TESTAMENT anti-Semetic? After all, the Jews at the foot of Sinai -- immediately after God freed them from Egyptian slavery -- engaged in idolatry while Moses was up the mountain talking with God. Look how poorly the Jews behaved in the Old Testament, earning God's ire and eventually Babylonian captivity. Even the great King David was portrayed as an adulterous murderer. Look how often the OT prophets read ancient Israel the riot act. Let's consider the words of the Old Testament Jewish prophet, Isaiah:

Surely he [God's servant] has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
-- Isaiah 53:4-6, emphasis mine

If Matthew was anti-Semetic for saying that the Jews turned away from Jesus, surely Isaiah was likewise anti-Semetic for predicting it.

If you're going to be consistent, you must say that the Old Testament is at least as anti-Semetic as the New Testament. Is it?