Posted on 02/20/2004 5:46:17 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Mel Gibson's put his money where his mouth is. By now everyone in the world knows he's spent $25 million to make "The Passion of the Christ" and promised nearly $25M more to market it.
But what you may not know is that Gibson has also put up $5.1 million so far to run his own personal church near Malibu.
Last year Christopher Noxon wrote in The New York Times that Gibson had donated $2.3 million to make Holy Family Catholic Church in Agoura Hills, California a reality. Holy Family rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Conference and chooses to stick with antiquated Catholic ideology.
Bu it turns out that Gibson has donated a little more than twice that amount to Holy Family since 1999, according to federal tax filings. And that's not counting 2003, since the most recent report has not yet been filed.
Gibson and his wife Robyn are listed in federal tax records as directors of the Holy Family Catholic Church. The church is run out of Gibson's Icon Production company offices, with an Icon employee responsible for keeping the church's books.
The Gibsons' tax-free donations to Holy Family are made possible by a charity they established called the AP Reilly Foundation, which is named for Mel's late mother. The foundation was created on October 29, 1999 for the sole purpose of creating the church.
The church, by the way, has an unlisted phone number, keeps its address a secret and has asked those who have the information not to release it.
Gibson is no stranger to controversy when it comes to voicing his opinion about his religious beliefs. In a 1992 interview with the Spanish magazine El Pais, his comments about homosexuals — which cannot be printed here — caused an international stir.
In the same interview Gibson talked about the fact that his brand of Traditionalist Catholics did not subscribe to the Second Vatican Council's 1965 rulings on various subjects including who was responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
When we decide to confront our enemies. I'm willing to accept that it's not the fault of mainstream (maybe just a little stream) Islam. We'll likely have to pick a new name, jihadism or something, we may have to include some of our "friends" in the newfound movement, but it's time to do it.
Impressive.
And perhaps today's PC horrors, that many churchs have glommed onto, been sucked in by, etc, are something Mel, like myself, refuses to support.
I left the Methodist Church after many years because of their membership in the pathetic and corrupt National Council of Churches. When you give to the Methodist Church, you give to this organization.
Perhaps Mel was fed up with homosexual, predatory priests using the Catholic Church as a hiding place. Perhaps he doesn't like the dropping of traditions once held so dearly in the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps his faith is so deep, his yearning for strict adherance to moral codes and behavior, traditional worship services, etc., that he decided to break out and bring this yearning into a fruition that he can share with like minded Christains and his children.
God Bless Mel.
It is clear from context that the statement means "universally accepted by Roman Catholics" (true by definition of any Vatican pronouncement of Catholic doctrine).
The author was a bit sloppy, I agree.
You assume I don't?
My purpose in posting this article, as noted in my comments, was that a contributor to FOX news, someone who is supposed to be part of the "fair and balanced" coverage, was allowed to call someone's religion in a negative light. I can't picture, for example, someone at FOX (or any other "major" news organization) being allowed to refer to any other religion (Islam, Judaism, or even branches thereof) as "fringe" or "antiquated."
My intent was to spark discussion about the content of news coverage, not the content of individual freepers.
Oh, puh-leeze. This is an evasion-by-parsing that would make Bill Clinton blush.
Frankly, what makes his son look bad is his own inability (or disinclination) to stand up on his hind legs and object to the old man's noxious garbage.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... We've heard it all before...
I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with anything my father says or does.
Apparently, many people feel the same about thier fathers as I do.
Gee, if I had a chapel in my back yard, I wouldn't want "lookie loos" either.
You know people would only come to see Mel. Leave him practice his faith in peace, for goodness sake. Who cares! He's not hurting anyone, is he??
I don't think that's entirely true. People have built chapels on their own property for years! The wealthy have done this for years. Look in Europe.
How about Catholic colleges? They are not neccessarily churces of the diocese but they are "legal."
Any time we attempt to judge another person's motives, we are walking on very thin ice.
Having said that, here's a potential alternative motive to Mel's refusal to publically 'object' in a strong fashion to his father's comments.
Perhaps Mel views God's commandment to honor your parents as more important than meeting the public's expectations about what he should or should not do.
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.