Moloney: 'Scene After Scene is Just Wrong' in Passion Film

Rev. Francis Moloney, the dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies and a top biblical scholar, said "The Passion of the Christ" film is historically incorrect in numerous places and at one point laughably misinterprets scripture.

"Scene after scene is just wrong," Moloney said about the film, citing a scene when Jesus hangs over a wall with chains and sees Judas. Moloney also objected to the portrayal of Pontius Pilate, and said he was "a violent, strong, Roman who swallowed his enemies like flies."

Moloney said the Jews in the film were inaccurately portrayed as "so massively negative."

When hired by the University as dean in October, Provost John Convey said Moloney "may be the best - or is - the top biblical scholar in the wo! rld." Appointed by Pope John Paul II to the International Theological Commission to the Holy See, Moloney was the founding dean of theology at Australian Catholic University in 1994.

"Acknowledging that it's an artist's representation," said Rev. Santo Cricchio, an associate campus minister. "It's not an unreasonable portrayal." Cricchio emphasized the importance of approaching the work as an artistic interpretation, and noted that one's reaction ultimately depends on their disposition and motivation for going. He said that he did not go in pursuit of accuracy, but was open to filmmaker Mel Gibson's interpretation.

"It's good for meditation," Cricchio said, adding that the film "focused on the Lord's sacrifice for us." He said that Lent is a strategic time for the film's release, noting that during this season, the first part of which is centered on Christ's temptation, and the second on his passion, "we strive to hear the Lord's call for ongoing conversion."

Fr. Cricchio said that he appreciated the "classically iconic images" portrayed in the film, such as Jesus with his disciples, and with Mary. He pointed out that there were many "classic snapshots," or scenes that, if frozen, "could have formed the tableau for a painting." He appreciates the depiction of Mary, "a remarkable character in our faith and in the movie." He said she was portrayed as "compassionate yet strong," and that her depiction is affirmed the reverence and honor that Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics accord her. Cricchio also noted that Mary was the only one other than Jesus who was able to see the devil. Cricchio said that what was shown in the movie seemed faithful to the portrayal in the Gospels, though noting that the degree of scourging that was in the film would have made it very difficult for anyone to afterwards carry the cross such a long way through town and up a hill.

Junior history major Rob Duke, like Cricchio, first recognized the! artistic nature of Gibson's production, saying it is unfortunate that many in the media are "trying to get their fifteen minutes of fame by nitpicking every detail" in the movie. It is odd, he said, that "The Passion" receives heavy criticism for the "gory and violent" scourging and crucifixion scenes while people like Steven Spielberg receive praise for other works such as "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan" that also express realistic portrayals of important events.

Nevertheless, many academic figures within the Church had a quite different take on the film, and criticize Gibson for saying early on that "The Passion" was a faithful account of the gospels, only to retract that in favor of a more artistic understanding. "I was aware that I brought a whole lot of cultural preparation that a biblical scholar particularly specializing in the Gospel stories of the passion would," said Moloney, who believes there are four fundamental parts where the film is in erro! r.

"I didn't like it as a movie," he said, criticizing the violence that "goes on, and on, and on." According to Moloney, the film lacked "narrative tension," and seemed the same all the way through. "In fact, I nearly fell asleep during the way of the cross."

"It's just historically wrong -- it's not what actually happened," Moloney said. He added that the manner in which the two thieves were shown carrying the cross beams was more historically accurate than the way Jesus was shown carrying the entire cross, because in reality the long part of the cross would have been waiting at the site.

"The mother of Jesus was not running around every corner trying to pick him up off the ground. That just didn't happen," according to Moloney. "I could go on and on. Every sequence had historical difficulties."

Moloney argued against the way in which Gibson selected different verses from different gospels. "Each passion story has its own point to make," he said,! adding that if the film puts a selection of all of them together, what you get is a "juxtaposition of material that doesn't belong together." A classic example he mentioned was that the last words of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, "My God my God, why have you forsaken me?" are "words of despair." The two writers "really wanted to show that Jesus really died an agonizing death, and that the answer of God to this death is the Resurrection in the very next chapter."

Luke, on the other hand, wants to portray Jesus as a "forgiving, pardoning, merciful Christ." In his Gospel, Christ says "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," and further to the thief: "This day you will be with me in paradise." His final words, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," are "words of trust," according to Moloney, as opposed to the words of despair one finds in Matthew and Mark. Gibson has Jesus saying both on the cross. "Which one is it?" Moloney asked.

"There are silly things too," such as when Mary picked Jesus up off the ground and he stated "behold, I make all things new."

"That's just ridiculous," Moloney said. "I nearly laughed. Those words come from the book of the Apocalypse."

Moloney criticized the movie on theological grounds, asseting that the underlying theology for the film comes from medieval Catholic spirituality that Gibson "picked up from his conservative tendencies and his reading of a particular mystic." Moloney said he deplores the message that seems to be conveyed from this standpoint, namely "the more blood, the more redemption."

"We are redeemed by the consummate act of love of God the Father who sent his son unconditionally to take on the human condition even down to its worst degree," and in the "incredible act of love of giving his life," Moloney said.

Moloney said he felt the film misuses the gospels and exhibits very poor theology. "If anyone wants to know what happen! ed, the best way to get to the passion is through the books," which are better than the movie, he said. He said he does not believe the two go together.

While respecting the fact that many people find the film helpful spiritually, Moloney said he finds it very interesting that it is so popular among Protestants, who traditionally do not have corpses on crosses displayed in church and generally do not subscribe to such spirituality. "The film is really high medieval Catholicism," he said.

Moloney suggests that the film has become so popular because "there is a subconscious recognition of the suffering of millions in this world." If this is the reason, "then it's great."

Moloney said his views reflect the general consensus among biblical scholars. He acknowledged that many people do not bring what scholars bring to the film, and "we've got to respect that."

Although he believes Gibson has an agenda beyond a mere devotional portrayal of the passion, he! said "you can never question intentions. He portrayed how he thinks it was. I happen to think he's wrong."

Wednesday, the School of Theology and Religious Studies, together with the Peace and Justice Studies Program, hosted a discussion entitled "The Passions Over 'The Passion.'" The panel included Rev. Timothy Friedrichsen, a CUA assistant professor, associate professors William Loewe and William Dinges, and Rabbi Jack Moline, who heads the Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, Va. The event, moderated by associate professor William Barbieri, drew a large crowd of CUA students inside of Herzfeld Auditorium.

A point that was frequently touched upon was the debate over the film's identity as a historical rendition of the gospels versus an artistic interpretation.

Gibson is at fault for initially claiming that the film was faithful to the gospels, rather than a piece of art, said Friedrichsen. "He did not keep his promise...I wish it was titled 'A Passio! n of the Christ,' or 'The Passion of the Christ According to Mel Gibson'." By blending the various passion accounts of the four gospel writers, he said, "the details in the gospels loose narrative point." He strongly agreed with a comment from audience member Matthew Sudnik, a junior philosophy major, who pointed out that Jesus' lines in the film did not seem to be in line with everyone else's.

Loewe asserted that Gibson's film is similar to the many gospels that were circulating in the early years of the Church that did not make it into the canon. These various accounts, not taken as sacred scripture, tried to "fill in the gaps" that exist in the four accepted gospel accounts. He asks: "Would Gibson's make it into the Canon?"

He also expressed concern over the scene showing the unrepentant thief being attacked by the large black bird while on the cross, fearing this may be "presenting a mean God that will get anyone for dissing Jesus sooner or later."

Dinges, an expert of sociology and religion and the only panel member who had not seen the film, brought up the point of how this film has brought out the "culture wars in American society." He said the debate that has erupted shows the divide between the "common folk" and "intellectuals," and challenged the audience to ponder this "commodification of a religious narrative," pointing out that it is still entertainment, and wondering aloud if it could be considered a "date movie" or if you would buy popcorn.

Moline emphasized the distinction between being anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish to support his position that Gibson's film was not anti-Semitic. "To be anti-Semitic you have to intend harm to living Jews." Although he does believe that it is anti-Jewish, he said he was "never afraid that a bunch of torchbearers would come and torch my synagogue" after seeing the film.

Moline said he does disagree with the notion that by calling the film a work of art, Gibson can! be excused from criticism. In fact, he said that this classification is "more a reason to criticize it than less," because "everything counts, every single detail is intended" in a piece of art. On a lighter note, in response to the poor language skills of the actors, he stated that he "never would have graduated from the seminary if I spoke Aramaic like that!"

Friedrichsen and Moline agreed that "The Passion" "closes the religious imagination...and externalizes the experience," in the words of Moline. In closing remarks, Loewe said that the violence was so repetitious that "it was counter-productive," and Dinges concluded by asking what the "long-term durability" of the film will be. He posed the question of whether people who do feel they become closer to Christ by this film will turn emotion into action and actually feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

"The film is really high medieval Catholicism,"

I am glad the Holy Spirit has finally corrected Himself. Thank goodness we have trendy, left wing, smug theologians who apparently speak as if they themselves were actually present 2000 years ago at the crucification.

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
43	Louisiana	70.00	2	35.00			38.00	5

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

he "never would have graduated from the seminary if I spoke Aramaic like that!"

Yeah, but I bet he wouldn't have even been admitted to acting school.

Just proving once again that biblical scholarship is a hothouse completely unconnected to the rest of the world. I hope that they have not gone so far into their own little bailiwick that they have disconnected themselves from God. As George MacDonald, the narrator's guide in C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, said, "There have been men before now who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God himself... as if the good Lord had nothing to do but exist! There have been some who were so occupied in spreading Christianity they never gave a thought to Christ. Man! Ye see it in smaller matters. Did ye never know a lover of books that with all his first editions and signed copies had lost the power to read them? Or an organiser of charities that had lost all love for the poor? It is the subtlest of all the snares."

Lewis's narrator says . . . "moved by a desire to change the subject . . . "

We must not forget that Moloney and others should know exactly what happened - evidently they were there.

"I didn't like it as a movie," he said.

He doesn't like The Movie? This guy is obviously going to burn in hell.</sarcasm>

We should be honest and admit that Fr. Moloney is right to the extent that Gibson's movie is not faithful to Moloney's theology. Moloney says that he deplores the "medieval Catholicism" of Gibson. So here we have a clear line of demarcation -- Gibson and traditional Catholicism on one side versus Moloney and other "biblical scholars" on the other side.

Most interesting of all perhaps is this reference to Moloney, "Appointed by Pope John Paul II to the International Theological Commission to the Holy See." This doesn't mean that JPII agrees with Moloney's criticism of the movie, but it does emphatically mean that JPII agrees with Moloney's theology, with his overall approach to the faith, with the faith of the "biblical scholars" who stand against the "medieval Catholicism" of Mel Gibson. These "biblical scholars" who were condemned and in some cases excommunicated by Pope Saint Pius X are now placed in all the positions of authority and influence by Pope John Paul II.

The anti-Papal calumny of your second paragraph is disproved by the Pope's words, "It is as it was", and the Vatican statement that the film is not anti-Semitic.

You must not have read what I wrote. I specifically denied claiming that the pope shares Moloney's opinion about the movie, but instead I made the point that the person who made these comments about the movie was appointed to an important Vatican commission by the pope. How can it be a calumny to say that the pope appointed Moloney, author of this screed against "medieval Catholicism," to the "International Theological Commission to the Holy See"? That's a simple fact.

Are you trying to claim that the pope appointed Moloney because he disagrees with Moloney's theology which "deplores" Gibson's "medieval Catholic spirituality that Gibson "picked up from his conservative tendencies and his reading of a particular mystic"? Rather than throwing around accusations of "calumny," perhaps you could explain to me why Pope John Paul II appointed the author of the comments in this article to be a member of the International Theological Commission to the Holy See?

I'd like to see this arrogant ass of priest prove that point!

Your comments imply that the Pope is "against medieval Catholicism". As the Pope is fully orthodox and upholds the Catholic faith whole and entire, he does not reject "medieval Catholicism" and more than "apostolic", "Patristic", "Constantinian" or "Tridentine Catholicism". As for theological speculation, there are different schools of thought, and having a diversity of such schools appointed to a commission does not mean that the Pope necessarily endorses any one theological vision or any particular beliefs of the theologian concerned. That is no proof whatsoever to your sweeping statement that the Pope is against "medieval Catholicism". In addition, since Moloney criticized the movie as "medieval Catholicism", whereas the Pope commended the movie, the Pope obviously does not agree with Moloney on the movie and may very well disagree with Moloney's views on "medieval Catholicism".

>>While respecting the fact that many people find the film helpful spiritually, Moloney said he finds it very interesting that it is so popular among Protestants, who traditionally do not have corpses on crosses displayed in church <<

Is it just me or is this statement offensive from a priest?

I'd like to see this arrogant ass of priest prove that point!

He's right. The Scriptures would likely have mentioned Mary's presence during the trip to Calvary, as they do her presence at the cross.

Moloney is a Scripture Scholar; Gibson is not.

The movie is interlaced with the "vision" imagery from Catherine Emmerich. Gibson admits that.

Catherine Emmerich's visions are not scriptural.

If Maloney wants to criticize Gibson for putting in Jesus' words from both Luke and from Mark would he care to comment on the record which one of the gospels was wrong? I am sure that knowing which of the Apostles is a liar would be enlightening for all us.

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.