Posted on 09/30/2003 5:26:08 AM PDT by catonsville
======================= "Note: The author of this review, Keith A Fournier, is a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He holds degrees in Philosophy, theology and law. He has been a champion of religious liberty and appeared as co-counsel in major cases at the United States Supreme Court. He is the author of seven books and, along with his law practice, serves as the president of both the "Your Catholic Voice Foundation" and "Common Good" "The Passion"
I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion" but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions. I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington D.C. and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words.
I moved out of Northern Virginia over three years ago and realized at that moment that I did not miss this kind of approach at all. I live in southeastern Virginia now, among people who are neither geographically nor constitutionally close to "the beltway" mindset or manner. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened.
From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
In addition to being a masterpiece of film making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, D.C. were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Dolorosa . As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road out side of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said, "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love. At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive.
The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?"
Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded, "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued, "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations.
This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women.
It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its' message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.
We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world.
The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion". It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "the Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!
I'll count that as a recommendation. I've also heard Scott Hahn praise the movie unreservedly, calling it the Pieta of movies.
That's why I believe this movie will be a blockbuster, ranking in the top 10 grossing movies of all time. More important, of course, is the fact that this film will have eternal repercussions for many people.
That is not entirely true. Luke was not a Jew. Matthew had been excommunicated from Judaism for swearing a pagan oath (a requirement for becoming a publican).
I think you're right. Screen it yourself first. Kids react differently to violence. I'm thinking roughly 12 or 13. But it's a must. Make sure they see it before they leave their teens.
Because it isn't. Jesus' ministry seems to have been financed by the publicans (traitors for the Romans) and the gospels are written from a publican point of view.
The publicans are never reproached. Jesus never says there is anything wrong with being a publican. On the contrary, he says that these traitors will go to heaven before the pharisees.
The publicans are portrayed as merely disreputable, not evil. The people who excommunicated the publicans -- the pharisees and the priests -- are the villians of the gospels.
Jesus states that the Romans were appointed by God to rule Judea. Obedience to the Romans is good. Rebellion against Rome is a sin (Barabbas the rebel is called a "robber.") These statements reflect the views of the publicans.
The pro-publican slant is shown most blatantly in Luke, where the chief publican is given the name "Zacchaeus," which means "innocent" in Aramaic. We are told how this poor "innocent" publican is persecuted by the mean pharisees and priests. How much do you think the publicans "contributed" to buy that passage?
The publicans are mentioned several times in the gospels. They were local thugs hired by the Romans to shakedown their countrymen to pay tribute to Rome. Publicans were traitors, the scum of the earth. Matthew was publican.
It sounds like you are saying if I am understanding correctly that Jesus and his disciples were rebels agaisnt the Romans to some degree yet they were traitors to the Jews?
Just the opposite. Jesus was obsequious to the Romans. He never dared criticize the Romans (as opposed to all the cursing he did against the pharisees) and he never criticized the publicans. Jesus declared that the Romans had been appointed by God to rule Judea. (John 19:11) That would have been an awfully strange statement for the Messiah to make, since the Messiah, by definition, was supposed to be the ruler.
If you think Jesus is just some big liar who was a rebel
I never said Jesus was a liar and he was certainly not a rebel, but I do think that the gospel writers, such as Matthew, had obvious reasons to hate the pharisees and the priests and their hatred comes through in the gospels. He also had an obvious motive to absolve the publicans, and that comes through too.
Jesus never left any writings of his own, so the only record we have of what he supposedly said comes from reprobates like Matthew. So, how can we really know what Jesus actually preached?
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.