Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary
Scotsman.com ^ | February 29, 2004 | Gerald Warner

Posted on 02/28/2004 6:34:54 PM PST by ultima ratio

Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

Gerald Warner

"ECCE homo." The words of Pontius Pilate - "Behold the man" - with which he exhibited Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, to the hostile crowd have inspired many devout works of art down the centuries. Yet only now has the cinema, the popular art form of our time, the challenge of portraying what Christians acknowledge to be the defining moment of human history, with the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ.

Since it is not due for release in this country until March 26, it would not be possible to offer a conventional critique of this production - the actors’ performances, quality of direction, photography and all the other elements by which a film is normally assessed. The need to suspend judgment on such technicalities, however, should not inhibit believers from taking a stand on the issues with which the enemies of the faith are assailing Gibson and - by extension - the entire Christian canon.

The first point of controversy that must be addressed is the distraction - for that is what it is - of the claim that the film is anti-Semitic. There could be no better way of dismissing this canard than by invoking responsible Jewish opinion, as voiced by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, an American organisation that exists to build bridges between Jewish and Christian communities. Rabbi Lapin has excoriated the activists persecuting Gibson with a robustness that few Gentiles would have dared to exhibit.

Two weeks ago, Lapin predicted that the film "will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made" and that "the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them". Pity no Catholic bishop has gone on record in equally enthusiastic vein. Lapin went on to denounce "Jewish organisations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism". With heroic objectivity, he also condemned the offence given to Christians because "Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian scripture ‘really means’".

The rabbi’s remarks follow upon an even more devastating broadside he delivered five months ago, on the same theme, when he insisted that protests against Gibson’s film "lack moral legitimacy". He cited the exhibition of blasphemous art shown in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum, when Arnold Lehman was director, including a Madonna smeared with elephant dung. He also pointed out, with a directness that no Christian could contemplate, that Martin Scorsese’s blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by Universal Pictures, run by Lew Wasserman, and posed the question "why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?"

Rabbi Lapin’s moral integrity and plain speaking have done more for Christian-Jewish relations than a thousand futile ecumenical symposia and weasel-worded scriptural trade-offs brokered by pressure groups and Vatican appeaseniks. It seems reasonable to hope that he speaks for a majority of his co-religionists, rather than the strident protesters. That said, the most vitriolic enemies of the film and its message are not Jews: they are drawn from the forces of militant secularism and the Fifth Column within the Catholic Church.

For, make no mistake, this is an intensely Catholic film. Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who rejects the humbug and chaos of the Second Vatican Catastrophe - as do an increasing number of the disillusioned survivors stumbling around in the ruins of the once-mighty Roman Catholic Church. The faithful translation on to film of the scriptural narrative of Christ’s passion and resurrection would, 50 years ago, have presented Catholics with an image that was totally familiar. Bishop Joseph Devine, bishop of Motherwell, is one of the few in Britain to have seen the film and has described it as "stunningly successful... a profoundly religious film."

Yet, today, the Easter People, the dancers in sanctuaries, those who claim They Are Church and all the assorted Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men who have converted Catholicism into a crankfest regard the Passion with as much alienation as any atheist.

Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

You will find little dissent from those propositions among the smirking, blue-rinse nuns of the post-Conciliar Church, or their ecumaniac male counterparts. To them, the crack of the centurion’s whip and the thud of the hammer on nails are distant, alien sounds - a disturbing echo of Holy Week long ago, of Gregorian plainsong, of ferias in Seville. In a word - ecumenically unhelpful; best washed away by a few more cups of tea at Scottish Churches House.

The militantly secular world is also keenly alert to the challenge of the Passion. In responding to Gibson’s initiative, no double-standard is too blatant, no inversion of truth too shameless. Critics are queuing up to denounce "pornographic violence" (the now favourite weasel phrase) in the literal portrayal of the crucifixion.

These are the self-same people who acclaimed every sadistic and pornographic obscenity with which Hollywood has poisoned the world over the past three decades, who vigorously denounced "censorship" and promoted the "pushing of boundaries". Now, suddenly, they are alarmed about pornographic violence.

Yet, amid all the sound and fury, the most contemptible phenomenon is the trahison des clercs. The Catholic Church will not embrace this film, despite the Pope’s verdict on it ("It is as it was!"), because it expresses a faith it now finds embarrassing. The Passion was made with as much religious dedication as the crafting of an Orthodox icon. The Tridentine Mass was celebrated on the set every morning and there was at least one conversion to Catholicism during the making of the film. Small wonder that modernist Roman theologians are galled by the fact that Tradition has produced the most triumphant artistic articulation of faith and that evangelical Protestants are flocking to experience it.

The Mass, as the bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, was the perfect complement to this artistic tribute to God. At the elevation of the host, the Catholic believer knows - although he can scarcely comprehend the fact - that he is as close to Christ as were Our Lady and St John at the foot of the cross. That is the cosmic drama of redemption that is re-enacted on the altar: "Behold the man".


TOPICS: Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: americanbishops; passion; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last
To: Unam Sanctam
You know, the hostility you express toward traditionalists says a lot about how threatened you feel by what we say. You need to lighten up and figure out what's got you foaming at the mouth with so little provocation. Was it the "Second Vatican Catastrophe" phrase in the article? If so, why take offense? Why not appreciate its aptness instead?
61 posted on 02/28/2004 8:56:35 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Aggie Mama
I can say nothing good about Fiorenza, so I just won't type anything tonight. I'm trying very hard to retain my Baptismal grace.

I will praise the Most Holy Trinity that Bishop diNardo is being sent to Houston and that after being made co-adjutor he will in due course become the Bishop.

P.S. May Fiorenza's new cathedral never be built.

62 posted on 02/28/2004 8:56:47 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Oh, yes. Mrs. Irma was the best. My dad has the first edition, I have the second. Her daughter Irma Becker was not bad, but the son has completely rewritten the book to make it all trendy and nouvelle and lo-cal. Completely lost both the charming, chatty tone and the good reliable recipes.
63 posted on 02/28/2004 9:02:34 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
That is a lie and you know it.

It is not a lie. You bear false witness as Caiphus did.

64 posted on 02/28/2004 9:03:53 PM PST by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
I suggest you go into your attack and dig out some of the philosophy textbooks they used in Catholic colleges in the 1950s. It is impossible to use these book to approach and challenge the worldview of modern philosophers. To be sure, the fault was also in the modern philosopher who refused to acknowledge how much commom ground was provided by Aristotle.But few textbooks acknwledge how hard it is for the modern student sufficiently to ground himself in Aristotle's logic and metaphysics and to understand that St. Thomas had a very different way of looking at things. It wasn't until read read Gilson that I understood something of the intellectual war in which St. Thomas was engaged and
how limited a use we can make of the weapons he forged.
65 posted on 02/28/2004 9:05:37 PM PST by RobbyS (Latin nothing of atonment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Go into your attic Of course.
66 posted on 02/28/2004 9:07:09 PM PST by RobbyS (Latin nothing of atonment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
I believe that the Pope's principle of personalism is meant as a vocabulary for addressing a secular world that has been stripped of any classical philosophical categories or understanding. It is a vocabulary that seeks to draw the secular mind and the non-Catholic Christian into the truth of Holy Mother Church where they can be schooled first having been fed milk as one would nurse a child and then solid food, which is the solid foundation of St. Thomas Aquinas and all Thomistic thought.

The Holy Father reigns at a time of such widespread dissent and infiltration by the communists, secularists and Freemasons that the 25 years of his pontificate are in fact an amazing testimony to him. Marian devotion has revived and returned in a way I would not have thought possible after the nadir of the 1970s. Without his guidance and leadership this would not have happened given the bishops in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia.

As the most Venerable Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich saw a Pope in her visions whose head drooped, suffered greatly, and was surrounded by men of mischief, so I believe that Pope is our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, and I praise God for him.

67 posted on 02/28/2004 9:11:59 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Bump to my post 67
68 posted on 02/28/2004 9:12:57 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Oh really? When was the last time these high churchmen spoke about Christ Crucified? Or the sins that put Christ on the Cross? They don't. They make nice. They dialogue. They demolish all sense of the sacred.
69 posted on 02/28/2004 9:14:03 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Pope never talks about Christ crucified? I guess you have been living on planet Mars for the past twenty years then. That is simply a ridiculous accusation. The crucifixion is the central mystery of the faith. Every mass talks about it. Give me a freaking break. You create a complete strawman fantasy caricature of the Catholic Church just so you can continue to take relentless potshots and tear her down.
70 posted on 02/28/2004 9:21:00 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
"You have bodily separated yourself from the visible Church of Christ on earth, and therefore..."

This is slander. Actually, calumny, a serious sin. Once again, since you seem very dense--I have every right to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel. Rome itself concedes this much, particularly in light of the mess it has already made of the Mass in most places. So tell me, who are you to question my credentials as a Catholic or where I choose to attend Mass?
71 posted on 02/28/2004 9:22:06 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
You are the one bearing false witness. A curial official denied the false reports of an "interfaith" shrine at Fatima, and yet you keep repeating the same slander over and over. Was it Goebels that said that if you keep repeating one lie over and over, pretty soon it will become truth?
72 posted on 02/28/2004 9:23:42 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Didn't Mel Gibson's depiction of Herod's court bear an uncanny resemblance to the Clinton Whitehouse?
73 posted on 02/28/2004 9:24:26 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (Why the long face, John?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Where is it permitted for you to attend a schismatic conventicle. Please cite chapter and verse.
74 posted on 02/28/2004 9:24:55 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You have joined what Archbishop Bruskewitz rightly labels a non-Catholic and dangerous organization, the SSPX. Yes, I do question your membership in the visible Church, since you yourself do not communicate at a church that is in communion with the successor of Peter. You refuse even to attend an indult mass. Your disobedience is completely unjustified. There is no necessity beyond your subjective individual desires.
75 posted on 02/28/2004 9:28:15 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Yes it is, and fills in some blanks that I had about the Catholic Church.

I have heard this said before.

Don't get me wrong, it is happening in all the big ones.

76 posted on 02/28/2004 9:29:41 PM PST by Cold Heat (In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
The Novus Ordo Mass in fact HIDES the Crucifixion. It HIDES the dogma of Propitiation for our sins as well. It is interested primarily in the Paschal Meal, an altogether different--and Protestant--theology. Its "sacrifice" is a "sacrifice of praise", not the sacrifice of the Cross as in the old Mass. It has not even an Offertory--having substituted a Jewish blessing-before-a-meal prayer instead! No wonder the altar has become a table and the priest a mere presider. In short, it is as far from Calvary as it can get and still be a Mass--which it is, granted, but just barely!
77 posted on 02/28/2004 9:32:12 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
It does not hide the crucifixion at all. That is simply a bogus lie. Neither does it hide propitiation for sins. That is simply a lie. The mass is the mass, and it is the same sacrifice of Calvary that it has always been.
78 posted on 02/28/2004 9:34:26 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Gladly. In a letter of 27 September 2002, Msgr. Perle of Ecclesia Dei, Rome, stated the following:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."



79 posted on 02/28/2004 9:38:11 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Maximilian; Land of the Irish
I will say good night to you three schismatic gentlemen. Of course the Church has problem, but she requires loyalty and fidelity to her and to the deposit of faith, and people who will fight for orthodoxy within the Church, not take potshots at her from outside. I am sick to death of the bashing of the Catholic Church and of a fully orthodox Pope that you three consistently fill this forum with, and am doubly sick that you use the occasion of this great movie, the Passion of the Christ, to once again dump on the Catholic Church. And yes, when you dump on the Catholic Church and the Pope, you do incite my hostility.
80 posted on 02/28/2004 9:38:58 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson