Skip to comments.Mel Gibson: $5 Mil to Fringe Church (FOX attacks "antiquated Catholic ideology")
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 ...
Gibson's chapel has 70 members and attendance is by invitation only.
That's an "exclusive" church.
Ever heard of tithing? Apparently Mel Gibson has:
8. "Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings.
9. "You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you!
10."Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.
11. "Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes," says the LORD of hosts.
12."All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land," says the LORD of hosts.
No one in the Catholic Church is empowered to build his own chapels or separate himself from the Pope, which Gibson has done.
I'm rebuking Hutton Gibson's Holocaust Denial and antisemitism. I'm criticizing Mel Gibson for not rebuking and correcting him.
I believe that less than five percent of Americans are Jewish. Is that a "fringe" religion too, now?
You tell me. Tell me what you really believe about the Jews. Share your deepest feelings. Get it all out.
How about Buddists? Or the Mennonites? Or the Mormons? Are the "antiquated" religions?
You tell me. Share your pain.
Scrutinize Gibson for shady business dealings or intemperate statements (if they, in fact, exist).
"Intemperate statements" ? ...
But don't single out a religion for attack.
I don't consider Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism to be a religion but if it were I would single it out for attack.
It is not common among mainline Catholics to reject Vatican II. Those who do reject it likely number less than 5% of active Catholics.
This has always been the case, and it is today.
Nothing incites people to fury more than the subversion of their illusions--especially when they are subverted by confrontation with truth. People will kill to prevent truth from threatening their illusions.
Notice how "Liberals" recoil in horror and anger when faced with truth.
Present the truth, and you could well find yourself crucified.
Uh....I hate to break this to you,since you're obviously looking for an excuse to call me an anti-Semite, but I'm in a mixed marriage.... my wife is Jewish. My kids are Jewish. Bar Mitzvahs and the whole deal.
We celebrate Christmas and Hannukkah in December, Easter and Passover in the Spring and Rosh Hashannah in the fall.
We both are looking forward to seeing this film because we think it will be a great piece of cinema.
Neither of us approve of bashing a religion as "antiquated" or "fringe" just because we disagree with it.
I'm simply noting that calling a small, or unpopular, religion "fringe" or "antiquated" in a major news outlet potentially opens the door to casting other such religions in a negative light.
Actually that is not quite correct.
Extract from a reply written on May 3,1994 by Cardinal Edward Casssidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,to an inquiry about the status of the Society of St.Pius X "... Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994) I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated.... I hope this answers your letter satisfactorily."
Hence, Widely accepted would be more correct, than Universally.
And as to choosing between VII and SSPX....
Better to be a schismatic, than a heretic.
Do you have evidence of this? I have seen Mel's theology/church referred to as "rejecting the reforms of VII and denying the authority of the Pope", but this seems to always be third-party hearsay. One can attend Latin indult masses and be skeptical of the manner in which VII is implemented, while still recognizing VII's authority and Papal authority in general as I do and remain in perfect union with Rome. I consider myself an Orthodox Traditionalist Catholic - I don't know if this is where Mel stands or if he has thrown his hat in with the Lefebvre gang.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is an important distinction and I have never seen it directly addressed by Mel.
I imagine that if he didn't do this, he would have to contend with groupies showing up there just to get a glimpse of him and possibly disrupting the service.