Posted on 07/20/2010 7:29:01 AM PDT by NYer
The final meltdown of Mel Gibson has come at a convenient time for Catholic-baiters in the media. The guy threatens violence against women, he’s a racist and he’s a CATHOLIC! Here’s Lucy Mangan in The Guardian, stooping almost as low as Gibson:
Received wisdom is that Gibson cannot recover from this. But one course is still open to him. If ever priesthood beckoned a man, it is surely now. At least he apparently saves his violence for adult females.
And if you don’t understand that last dig, let me point you to Times columnist Caitlin Moran, who explained on Thursday that the Catholic Church “f**** kids”.
The slurs against Catholics being put about liberal journalists aren’t far removed from Protocols territory, if you ask me. But dragging Gibson into this rancid rhetoric doesn’t work, for a simple reason.
He’s not a Catholic.
In fact, Mel Gibson is in some respects the opposite of a Catholic, since one of the themes of his fake Catholicism is that the Pope isn’t the Pope. Admittedly, Mel’s own theology tends to morph like a shape-shifting lizard, depending on how hung over he is, but in so far as he’s anything he’s a sedevacantist like his father, Hutton Gibson.
Sedevacantists regard the Second Vatican Council as so obviously evil that it must have been the work of Satan, and therefore the Pope who called it and his successors aren’t really Popes. Gibson Senior once reportedly described John Paul II as “Garrulous Karolus the Koran kisser” and has put about the notion that the last real Pope was secretly elected at the 1958 conclave but forced to resign in favour of anti-pope John XIII. But then old man Gibson never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like; hence his well-documented Holocaust and 9/11 revisionism.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
“Since the Catholic Church was never anti-semitic in its dogma, then it seems hard to suggest that the SSPX is. “
Really?
They’re as pure as that are they?
“I have read some of the SSPX material I have seen online, and read and listened to interviews with Fellay et al, and nothing I have seen reflects anything overtly anti-semitic.”
Really? You are aware they did remove some materials last year right? And that is an excellent start.
Why do you limit yourself to Fellay?
Are you uncomfortable with discussing Williamson? or Lefebvre himself?
Have you read articles written for The Angelus by SSPX priest Frs. Crowdy and Novak?
Are they still priests in good standing?
I did catch Fellays response to the Williamson question, and that is an excellent start.
But I tend to want too much too quickly I guess...I would “like” to hear Fellay specifically correct Williamson on the issue of holocaust denial.
Instead he says - well - we’re not in the history business - we just concern ourselves with faith. Nice dodge.
And what about all the influence Williamson had in the Society for YEARS? And the priests & laypeople who received their formation from him.
Not much talk about that.
Again - I just think we possibly are speaking a different language.
Maybe if I had used the phrase “fallen away catholic” or “catholic who is not in full communion with the Church” - then that may have cleared up some disagreement.
Really?
They’re as pure as that are they?
I am not saying that anybody is pure, but only that dogma is not the same as personal motivation. You started by seemingly suggesting that members or adherents of the SSPX are motivated by hatred of Jews, and I think this is unreasonable. Even if a percentage of people associated with the fraternity have a particular idea about Judaism it does not prove anti-semitism in regard to them or the SSPX itself. It certainly doesn't make their ideas dogma, even SSPX dogma.
Really? You are aware they did remove some materials last year right? And that is an excellent start. Why do you limit yourself to Fellay? Are you uncomfortable with discussing Williamson? or Lefebvre himself?
Limit myself? Why do you say that? I said "Fellay et al" demonstrating I did not limit myself. And I am perfectly willing to discuss Williamson but I don't see it proving anything. People on this forum won't accept the authority of a Cardinal who is a competent authority in a field appointed directly by the Pope, and yet I am supposed to take Williamson as some sort of super SSPX example? He is a bishop, and he has opinions. So what? Mahoney is a Cardinal and has opinions too. Does that prove something about the Church? I don't think so.
And is there any real, and I mean real, evidence that Williamson is actually motivated by hatred of Jews? Is that the only reason people could have for doubting the holocaust numbers? That argument just sounds a little too much like the argument that not supporting Obama can only be because he is black.
Have you read articles written for The Angelus by SSPX priest Frs. Crowdy and Novak? Are they still priests in good standing?
I haven't read the articles, and do not know them. Send me links and I will read them. And what do you mean by "priest's in good standing"? Do you mean in good standing with the SSPX, or the Church? If they are SSPX priests then clearly they wouldn't be the latter, and as for the former I obviously wouldn't know.
I did catch Fellays response to the Williamson question, and that is an excellent start. But I tend to want too much too quickly I guess...I would “like” to hear Fellay specifically correct Williamson on the issue of holocaust denial. Instead he says - well - we’re not in the history business - we just concern ourselves with faith. Nice dodge.
You should know that the Church has no revealed deposit of faith regarding the number of victims in the holocaust. Williamson is historically wrong, but why he is wrong is hardly self evident. As for Fellay, he could have said more, but why should he? How is this a dodge? Is the Church in the history business? Have the Popes been forced to take an oath regarding how many died in the Holocaust, and how many Africans died during the slave trade in America? I am not personally offended by what I read of Fellay's reaction.
And what about all the influence Williamson had in the Society for YEARS? And the priests & laypeople who received their formation from him.
What about it? What about all the influence Weakland had for years? Mahoney? The list goes on and on. What of it? Williamson is a bishop who is dead wrong on a matter of history. How many bishops do you know who are dead wrong on matters of faith? Which would you prefer?
Maybe if I had used the phrase “fallen away catholic” or “catholic who is not in full communion with the Church” - then that may have cleared up some disagreement.
Yes, I would be comfortable with those, and more. I have no doubt that they are in a wounded state, and their relationship to the Church, and their willingness to repent, are imperfect. But, they still remain Catholics.
I never claimed it was SSPX “dogma”
As for the rest of your statements regarding Williamson and the holocaust denial?
Well - let’s just say that I’ll leave it right there.
I am now bowing out of this conversation.
Have a nice evening.
For anyone who simply thinks Williamson got his numbers wrong - or that his count was a little inaccurate, let’s please review.
He said “not one”.
He said there were no gas chambers.
Shheeeshh!
What freakin’ waste of time this has been!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
If you have never attended a Tridentine Mass you are far younger than I or a once indifferent Catholic or a convert. You may well be a Catholic today but I find most curious the notion that B-XVI's alleged "silence" in the face of Castrillon de Hoyos's brazen attempt WITHOUT AUTHORITY to ignore the PAPAL ecclesiastical judgment of John Paul II (the pope that the Lefebvrites most love to hate because he excommunicated and declared schismatic their anti-papal and anti-Catholic heroes in schism) especially since B-XVI himself, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, joined with John Paul II in excommunicating the virulently defiant SSPX bishops and their adherents in 1982 as they had stolen the power to consecrate bishops in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to JP II.
That B-XVI has not seen fit to publicly comment on Rembert Weakland's homosexual abuse of seminarians while Archbishop of Milwaukee does not suggest papal approval of such behavior.
No one whomsoever in SSPX has any authority whatsoever to grant faculties to priests (ordaining them illicitly is one thing and granting faculties quite another/ask any suspended priest) and yet the SSPX miscreants hear non-emergency confessions, and witness to non-emergency marriages in dioceses with diocesan ordinaries without so much as a by your leave to actual authority. This makes them quite analogous to Luther and Cauvin and they are, in fact, setting up their own Church. Read their rationalizations as to how the Roman Catholic Church would die out for lack of actual priests if Marcel the malignant did not directly defy papal orders to consecrate bishops against JP II's direct orders. Read their newsletters and publications. Read particularly de Mallerais whose vile mouth makes Williamson look about as scary as Soupy Sales or Pee Wee Herman.
It's an anti-Christian movie, actually. It's all about mocking, beating and killing this Christ dude...
Great to see you back and posting on FR!
I never claimed it was SSPX “dogma”
My apologies if I misunderstood you. Earlier you countered to a point of mine that there was no tea party "dogma" which caused me to believe that you were stating that such was in fact dogma in the case of the SSPX. Again, sorry if I misunderstood.
As for the rest of your statements regarding Williamson and the holocaust denial?
Well - let’s just say that I’ll leave it right there.
I am now bowing out of this conversation.
Have a nice evening.
I will certainly respect your desire to bow out, but perhaps you will tolerate one more comment from me on this. I would like to point out that your comments here, and what they imply, seem very much like what I am speaking about. Not only are people absolutely certain that Williamson is informed entirely by hatred for Jews, the mere question about how certain we can be on this leads you to respond as if I were also of like mind. Why is this? Should nothing more than a desire not to assume things beyond my knowledge really cause someone to be offended?
I am concerned in this with accuracy, honesty and charity. I do not know Williamson. I cannot speak to his heart, though I can respond to his comments on history. I have not defended his view as accurate, but rather to the contrary have denied it outright. And yet my unwillingness to condemn not just his ideas, which I have, but also his motives, which I am entirely ignorant of, as are all besides the bishop himself and God, seemingly cause you to respond as if I were myself some sort of bigot.
And, to conclude, please consider that I am also not ascribing anything to you here, but speaking only about what is implied in the context and the way you are responding above. If you meant other than I have understood, then again, I apologise.
Movies are powerful political tools. It's a fallacy to think movies mirror society. It's always been the other way around. Movies create public opinion. They're more potent than people imagine.
That, and the fact that films press not only words but images into our head which can linger for a long time.
"The Passion of the Christ" concentrated on Christ's suffering rather than on His willingness to fulfill His Father's mission. Christ was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Gibson, an actor who's bared his heaving chest in dozens of torture scenes, would have us believe a better description is "the Lamb beaten, bloodied, roasted, toasted and split apart by slobbering Jews."
But this isn't really the image of Christ Scripture gives us. God's word presents the facts, horrific and damning as they were, but it does not make us dwell incessantly on Christ's agony and pain. Scripture instead focuses on giving us the hope of the Resurrection.
And that hope is preached to Jews and Gentiles alike.
Gibson didn't even show the Resurrection. "The Passion" ended with Christ on the cross. Gibson missed the best part. He ignored the money scene.
Also, "Christ-killer" is a Romanist pejorative, as Gibson's movie over-illustrated.
All that being said, I do admit 80% of Hollywood despises Christianity. They loathe it because they do not understand it. So, from that perspective, it was a miracle Gibson's movie was made and has received such world-wide attendance.
I like Gibson. He said in an interview once that he believed "everything" in life was controlled by God -- people, cars, events. Everything. I admired that candor. I think he's correct on that point.
"Braveheart" was great, and "Conspiracy Theory" was worth seeing twice. But for someone who seemed to understand the evil that men do and the lengths to which men go to control other men, he sure is a knucklehead.
"Didn't you guys ever watch the show?!?" -- Guy Fleegman, Crewman #6, "Galaxy Quest."
And finally, what's up with this...?
PERTH MAN TAUGHT MEL GIBSON HYPNOSIS
Two-way mirrors within mirrors.
lol. Historical revisionism defines them.
I made no reference to antiSemitism as a quality of the SSPX schism. Williamson's eccentricities are doubtless not shared by many of his partners in anti-papal schism.
Sorry about that. I may have become confused about which person I was responding to, as I sometimes do. If so, I apologise.
If you have never attended a Tridentine Mass you are far younger than I or a once indifferent Catholic or a convert.
Kind of. I am a convert, of about fifteen years. However, mainly, I live in Florida where the old forms have consistently been met with episcopal hostility.
That B-XVI has not seen fit to publicly comment on Rembert Weakland's homosexual abuse of seminarians while Archbishop of Milwaukee does not suggest papal approval of such behavior.
I agree, though, insofar as he has addressed abuse in general, and responded canonically, he has effectively responded also to Weakland, though not directly of course. However, as to this and the silence regarding the Ecclesia Dei commission, I don't think they are at all analogous. That commission was the legitimate authority appointed by the Pope regarding the issues we are discussing. When the CDW says that churches are not allowed to empty the holy water founts during Lent that judgement is binding. Why? Because they have that authority. If the Holy Father chooses to step in and change things he can. But unless and until he does so, then their position stands as authoritative and all Catholics are bound to submit. In the matter of the SSPX Ecclesia Dei was the competent authority representing the Pope, and as such their statements stand until contradicted by a higher authority. So far they haven't been.
This makes them quite analogous to Luther and Cauvin and they are, in fact, setting up their own Church.
Up to this I was with you, but here I think you move beyond the actual facts. They are certainly disobedient, but so is the priest in my local church when he makes up prayers in the Mass. It doesn't make my local parish a separate institutional Church. It makes the priest disobedient. Luther and Calvin intentionally and formally sought to create a Church apart from the Catholic Church, and at the same time denounced the true Church itself as an institution. The SSPX have never done these things.
Read their rationalizations as to how the Roman Catholic Church would die out for lack of actual priests if Marcel the malignant did not directly defy papal orders to consecrate bishops against JP II's direct orders. Read their newsletters and publications. Read particularly de Mallerais whose vile mouth makes Williamson look about as scary as Soupy Sales or Pee Wee Herman.
Hey, what's with all the Soupy Sales on this thread? :-)
Seriously though, I can't disagree with you overall. I don't particularly sympathise with the SSPX, though I also don't have a big problem with them. They don't matter much to me overall, to be frank. I really just don't agree with assertions regarding motives, which are beyond peoples' ken, or suggestions that Catholics stop being Catholics by being disobedient or sinful. It would be a mighty small Church if that were so.
AND...the Jews did not kill Christ. We ALL did, but as Jesus said, "No man takes my life from me, I give it up of myself.". Praise his holy name!
Had Mel said what he said in lyrics to a rap song or in poetry he would be be sporting bling around his neck and a grammy on his wall. The fact that he’s Christian and white....he’s toast
Gibson didn't even show the Resurrection. "The Passion" ended with Christ on the cross. Gibson missed the best part. He ignored the money scene.
Did you walk out early? The version I saw at the theatre ended, not with the cross, but with the resurrection.
It’s been awhile, but my memory of the last scene is Christ on the cross as a tear or drop of sweat falls from His face to the ground.
It may not be popular to say but I found that movie compelling and moving on a lot of different levels. I agree with the criticism where it deviated from Scripture, but it took courage to make. His career would have been over had it failed at the box office.
I feel bad for him and his family. I'm sorry to see him self destruct. Maybe the Holy Spirit is drawing him to the Lord in all this turmoil.
Amen. That is because you have been given spiritual discernment to understand His sacrifice without having to witness it firsthand.
God gives to all His children that ability.
as Jesus said, "No man takes my life from me, I give it up of myself." Praise his holy name!
Amen!
>> Mel Gibson is not a Roman Catholic
More importantly he is Christian.
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.