Actor Jim Caviezel Turns Down $75 Million Dollar Payday (for 'Passion' related promotions)

WENN.com ^ | 5/27/04 | IMDB staff

[sathers]

Movie star Jim Caviezel has turned down the chance to become a multimillioniare by starring in a series of TV commericals-because he wants to stay true to his strict Catholic beliefs.

The actor has become a hot property since starring as Jesus in Mel Gibson's epic 'The Passion of the Christ,' but the 35 year old has turned down a series of deals--worth an estimated 75 million.

He says, 'I think if I had given way on just one scheme, I would have been tempted to do more. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to make that kind of money quickly. That sum would have secured your future, but I would never have been able to forgive myself.'

Among the deals Caviezel turned down was one for a T-shirt company's new 'Heavenly' line of apparel.

He adds, 'I could see the humor in it, but I think I would have upset a lot of people who get something special from the film.

[big'ol_freeper]

*ping*

[LS]

Well, I'm the first one to say people should be rich so they have something to give away; and I firmly believe Jesus Himself DAILY practiced giving to the poor---otherwise, how could He demand that we do something He never practiced? But I also think JC is right here. Once you start that, it becomes a type of prostitution that you can always rationalize as "well, I'm giving the money to the poor." If that's the logic, then a prostitute who gives money to the poor is "walking with God." No, the Bible says that it is as important where the money comes from as it is how it's used. I won't push this too far---especially since it's not my money :)

[Kerry Crusher]

Good idea. Caveizal for Prez. He's a good man.

[NYer]

In an interview with EWTN, Caviezel was asked if he worried that speaking out with such "audacity" about his faith might antagonize the powers that be in Hollywood and the media, and possibly prevent him from rising to superstar status. The soft-spoken actor answered with more audacity.

"I’m here for a reason," Caviezel said, "to express, to preach to the nation that this is God — this is who our God is, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And for saying that, yeah, it could be death, but ‘to live is Christ and to die is gain.’ [Philippians 1:21]

You know, at worst, you die a martyr or you lose your career. Then I lose the career. Then that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I’m not going to do one more film than I’m supposed to do."

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Kerry Crusher]

Strange as it sounds, Pam Anderson has actually turn her life over to the Big Guy. Again, maybe there's hope for Hollyweird.

[Stone Mountain]

Yes, there is a case to be made. But it is the wrong one.

How wonderful it must be to be certain of all things moral...

The end does not justify the means in this case. Helping the poor is a good thing. But compromising other Godly principles to accomplish it is not a good thing.

I don't see that Caviezel appearing in advertisements compromises Godly principles. Do you believe that everyone who appears in advertisements compromises Godly principles?

The tone of your argument also seems to indicate you are attaching importance to the sheer amount of money as if I could compromise for 70 million but it would be wrong if I did it for just 20 dollars. The only principle you would be following there would be, "Money Talks." or "Anybody can be bought."

Well, I see a difference between 20 dollars and 70 million. That doesn't mean that I believe that anybody can be bought. But you would have to be a fool not to see the difference and reflect on what that difference means.

Perhaps if you could tell me exactly what would be immoral about Caviezel doing an advertisement, I might be able to reply to it. As it is, you seem to making the assertion that Caviezel doing advertisements is inherently immoral, and then, of course, it is easy to say that one shouldn't do immoral things for any reason. Why is it immoral?

[Hildy]

I understand what you mean, but that would mean compromising his beliefs. Compromise is failure on the installment plan.

[fella]

The devils road is a broad and easy road to follow until the end but the Lords' road is narrow and difficult to travel but its' end is far better.

[Let's Roll]

He's very special.

[FrankR]

"... my moral dilemma would be what to do with the money, not whether or not to take it."

Yeah...right.

[NCC-1701]

Finally there is a moral Catholic in whorellyweird. Quite unlike Madonna, who was one herself. There are so dew of them out there in la-la land. He deserves his props. Hopefully, that will translate in Best Actor next year. I'm not holding my breath on that. It is a pleasure to share the Catholic faith with him & Mel Gibson. Two positives in a cesspool of immorality

[Drawsing]

How wonderful it must be to be certain of all things moral...

I am not certain of all things moral. Please forgive my choice of words that gave you that impression.

I cannot say for sure, but going by what Caviezel said in the article I would guess that the Godly principle that Caviezel would be violating would be that he apparently believes it would somehow trivialize his influential role in a powerful movie for him to use that role to sell clothes. So the principle is he would be violating his own conscience...and that is a Biblical principle.

[vigilo]

What a minute! The guy isn't really Jesus, he just played him in a movie. He's an actor, he ACTS for a living. Jim, you're an actor. It's okay to make money, it isn't evil or a substandard approach to life. Good grief!! The only way this would be a great moral achievement is if making money were evil.

[windcliff]

ping

[onedoug]

pong

[jwfiv]

Caveizal ping.

[Victoria Delsoul]

He's a good actor and a man of convictions; 75 million dollars is a lot of money.

[Mears]

It's called "character" and it is also called "class"

Not much of either in the celebrity world these days.

[walden]

I agree that his decision IS wise-- no matter how much good the money might have done, the trivialization of the gospel and the mocking of Christ would have done FAR more harm. The level of physical poverty in the world is dwarfed by the level of spiritual poverty.

[SAMWolf]

75 million dollars is a lot of money.

I'd settlew for 1/75th of it. :-)