Posted on 05/30/2003 4:29:47 PM PDT by Plainsman
Date: 2003-05-30
Controversy Swirls Around Mel Gibson's 'Passion'
Denver Archbishop Weighs In on Film About Christ
DENVER, Colorado, MAY 30, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Though Mel Gibson's latest film "The Passion" isn't scheduled to appear in theaters for another eight months, it is already arousing heated debate.
This week Archbishop Charles Chaput devoted his column in the Denver Catholic Register to defending Gibson's movie from those who charge that a cinematic portrayal of Christ's passion and death could stir up flames of anti-Semitism.
"I find it puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released," Archbishop Chaput writes. "When the overtly provocative 'The Last Temptation of Christ' was released 15 years ago, movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone."
The column follows on the heels of a string of recent attacks on Gibson's film, culminating in an 18-page report of an ad hoc committee of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs criticizing the script of the movie.
The ad hoc scholar's group that produced the report was assembled by Eugene Fisher of the bishops' conference and Rabbi Eugene Korn of the Anti-Defamation League, and comprised a mix of nine Jewish and Christian academics. One of the signers, Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University describes herself as "a Yankee Jewish feminist ... with a commitment to exposing and expunging anti-Jewish, sexist and heterosexist theologies."
The group's report, dated May 2, criticized everything from the size of the cross used for the crucifixion scene, to the languages spoken, to poor character development. The document's central complaint, however, is that "a graphic movie presentation of the crucifixion could reawaken the very anti-Semitic attitudes that we have devoted our careers to combating."
The report takes issue with director Gibson's decision to focus on Christ's passion rather than presenting a broader vision of "the ministry of Jesus, of his preaching and teaching about God's reign, his distinctive table companionship, his mediation of God's gracious mercy."
The report furthermore disapproves of the film's treatment of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' passion as historical facts. According to the signers, Gibson disregards exegetical theories that the Evangelists' accounts represent later efforts of the Christian community to "shift responsibility from Pilate onto Jewish figures," and accuses the script of utilizing the four distinct passion narratives "without regard for their apologetic and polemical features."
Yet Gibson has recently received support from the Jewish sector as well.
Writing in the New York Jewish weekly Forward, Orthodox Jewish author David Klinghoffer defended Gibson's efforts and chided his co-religionists for adhering to the historically dubious account of Jesus' death handed down by Jewish officialdom.
Such an account absolves the Jews from complicity in Jesus' death and places the blame on the shoulders of the Romans. "Our loyalty should be to Judaism and to truth," Klinghoffer writes, "not to an officially sanctioned, sanitized version of Judaism or the truth -- which may be neither Jewish nor true."
The ad hoc group report follows on a series of stories that appeared in different news media across North America, criticizing the movie along similar lines.
Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, for example, denounced Gibson's film for its literal reading of the Biblical accounts of Christ's passion. According to Carroll, "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred."
Such opinions are not shared by other scholars in the field. Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, National Endowment for the Humanities professor of ancient Mediterranean studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, not only read the script, but translated it into Aramaic and Latin.
In a recent Los Angeles Times article, Father Fulco points out that "the Jewish community portrayed in the film consists of people both sympathetic to Jesus and hostile to him, just as the Roman community is portrayed. Indeed, if anyone does not come off well in this film, it is the Roman community and governing establishment. ... I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel is anti-Semitic."
This is not the first time the bishops' committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs has gone out on a limb in its interpretation of scriptural texts.
Last August, the committee published "Reflections on Covenant and Mission," which stated that Jews' witness to the Kingdom "must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity." The document immediately came under heavy fire from Catholics and Protestants alike, as betraying the message of the New Testament.
Cardinal William Keeler, the U.S. bishops' moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, was quick to point out that the committee's findings did not represent a formal position of the bishops' conference.
Given that no one has yet viewed the film, Archbishop Chaput recommends prudence. "We'll get a chance to love or criticize 'The Passion' soon enough," he writes. "In the meantime, between a decent man and his critics, I'll choose the decent man every time -- until the evidence shows otherwise."
I sure hope it isn't an airborne virus. I'd hate to catch it.
L
Such an account absolves the Jews from complicity in Jesus' death and places the blame on the shoulders of the Romans. "Our loyalty should be to Judaism and to truth," Klinghoffer writes, "not to an officially sanctioned, sanitized version of Judaism or the truth -- which may be neither Jewish nor true."
Exactly. Go back 2000 years, and my ancestors were in small part complicit in Jesus' death. They didn't kill him, but they chose not to save him. Jews had no responsibility to choose to save Jesus, because it was a choice between Jesus or Barabas, a Jew who wasn't in the habit of kicking over tables at temples and getting into arguments with important rabbis. Remember, most of the Jews at the time did not like Jesus, he was stirring up trouble (which is also why the Romans hated him). That isn't to say he was wrong, it's to say that a lot of people did not like what he was saying.
But the Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. And according to Christian theology, everyone on Earth is responsible, not just Romans, not just Jews.
Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, for example, denounced Gibson's film for its literal reading of the Biblical accounts of Christ's passion. According to Carroll, "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred."
This is a vile thing to say, and it's false. I see far, far more Jew-hatred in atheist Eureaucrats than in Christian Americans.
Let's see: Jesus goes walking around and Jews are upset with him. Therefore the Bible inherently and irrevocably carries the "virus of Jew hatred."
What does Carrol' think of the Koran? Mohammed goes walking around the desert making war on Jewish tribes. Does that mean the Koran is infected with the virus of Jew-hatred? If Carroll thinks so, he certainly wouldn't dare say it. He's an anti-Christian bigot (but you don't need me to tell you that)
Dontcha just love anti-Christian "ad hoc scholars" who have a pathological need to deprive the rest of the truth?
I wonder if these same elitists would also be amicable to a WWII movie with a concentration camp gas/shower scene depicted instead as hot-tub parties given by German "hosts"??
I think not.
Vile blasphemy.
James Carroll should stick to his usual reading material; "Harry Potter V" is due out next month.
With enemies like this, who needs friends? *\;-)
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to:
1. Seeing the movie, and
2. Adding it to my video collection.
(Said video collection will be including many of the "hoary old" classics -- Ben Hur, The Robe, etc. -- since it seems they aren't being aired on politically-correct broadcast television any more.)
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.