Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson is a lot like you and me
Examiner.com ^ | July 16, 2010 | Rene Girard

Posted on 07/17/2010 9:49:21 AM PDT by jackspyder

By now you have heard about Mel Gibson's recent foul-mouthed tirade. Apparently he said some pretty harsh things to Oksana Grigorieva the Russian woman he has been involved with lately. He used words that are considered offensive and racist and maybe he wasn't just angry, he might of also been drunk or having an emotional breakdown or perhaps he's bi-polar. People are speculating while some are wondering if it was even Mel Gibson's voice they heard on several recordings ...

On a personal note, I for one have not heard the recordings, and I don't want to hear them. I heard part of one, which was edited, and I have read a few things, also edited, and I have seen both a before and after picture of this woman. The before picture looked like the octo-mom, the "after" pic looked like a "before" picture from a dentist's office. Apparently Mel knocked the veneers right off her teeth.

Some people are sticking up for Mel, like Michael Savage and Whoopi Goldberg, and surprisingly enough, Mel's ex-wife of 28 yrs whom he left to be with his new Russian spy.

I don't want to stick up for Mel Gibson, I think what he has said and done are horrendous; however, I would like to point out that he is a lot like you and me and every individual who has ever lost his temper, said something stupid, evil, disgusting, or degrading, because we were angry or upset or hysterical.

He's a pervert? So are most people. He's a racist? It's hard to find anyone who has never had a racist thought. (like: what's that white boy doing with that black girl? or Democrats who claim they hear a racist tone whenever someone criticizes Obama.)

The fact is Mel Gibson is a sinner

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: adultery; love; melgibson; oksana; russian
great article about both sin and love
1 posted on 07/17/2010 9:49:24 AM PDT by jackspyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jackspyder
Gibson had his reasons for casting his own hands as those of the centurion driving the nails into Christ's wrists in 'Passion'.

Thanks for posting - Mel's sins are ugly but no uglier than my own.

2 posted on 07/17/2010 9:57:02 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

“Mel Gibson is a lot like you and me...”

I always tell people I have 99.9% DNA in common with Brad Pitt. Lot of good it does me.


3 posted on 07/17/2010 9:59:41 AM PDT by PLMerite (The FR clock is now three minutes fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

I caught some of one of the tapes on radio last week.
The way her voice sounded compared to his, as far as sound quality, was very suspicious. Sounded spliced.

In any case, there are 2 sides to this story. There was a man who knows the woman on TV the other night and he says she is a real gold digger and to wait and see before harshly judging Mel.

If the quotes attributed to Mel are true, they are inexcusable, but it does seem that woman knew exactly what buttons to push to get him over the edge of sanity.

I am withholding any opinion on the matter until the facts are known from both sides.


4 posted on 07/17/2010 10:00:58 AM PDT by TheConservativeParty (Everytime a democrat loses, a Moonbat gets its wings burned off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

oh yeaaaa - I remember hearing about that ... seems like his life has really gone downhill since then, but you’re right - thanks for pointing that out.


5 posted on 07/17/2010 10:01:09 AM PDT by jackspyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

I got to the point of “might of” and just stopped.


6 posted on 07/17/2010 10:04:02 AM PDT by bcsco (First there was Slick Willie. Now there's "Oil Slick" Barry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

This guy sums up my position pretty much exactly.


7 posted on 07/17/2010 10:12:09 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder
"Apparently Mel knocked the veneers right off her teeth."

After seeing her picture it is almost assured Mel did no such thing. If you look you will see there is not a single mark or any swelling in her lips. As someone who boxed competitively for 10 years I can assure you that you can't hit someone in the mouth hard enough to damage their teeth without busting their lip. I just doesn't happen. And I'm hearing now that experts are saying her tapes have been doctored.

8 posted on 07/17/2010 10:17:00 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

That is all very true. I think he had a meltdown after the attacks on him for The Passion; God called him to make it, which meant that Satan was really lying in wait for him afterwards.

One of Mel Gibson’s problems, however, is that he doesn’t attend a regular Catholic church, but was in a Traditionalist “private chapel” situation. I don’t think they’re SSPX (it might be better if they were). Priests in these groups are usually legitimately ordained priests, but no bishop will actually incardinate them, although in many cases the bishop of the diocese permits them to have faculties as “visiting priests.

The problem is that this leaves their parishioners very isolated and in an uncertain situation, and also prevents them from getting the whole-hearted support of the Church when there is a problem.


9 posted on 07/17/2010 10:19:22 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

This may be the reason some are cutting Gibson some slack and hoping that much of this tape business is altered, piled-on, B-grade movie script stuff. Unlike someone like BHO—who I almost consider beyond redemption and one who would NEVER view himself as flawed and who likewise would never offer his OWN hand as one driving in the nails—at least Gibson sees himself as the rest of us see OURselves—hopeless sinners without God’s grace.


10 posted on 07/17/2010 10:37:15 AM PDT by 1951Boomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
After seeing her picture it is almost assured Mel did no such thing. If you look you will see there is not a single mark or any swelling in her lips.

I wondered about that too. Now she's claiming he hit the child, but the judge ruled that there is no evidence he's a danger to the child. Now, either the judge is wrong (possible) or that woman is lying. If she's lying about that, what else is she lying about? It's completely possible that he was abusive to her (those tapes, even if tampered with, are pretty damning evidence of verbal abuse), and I'm not excusing him across the board... but I don't think he's guilty of everything she's accusing him of.

11 posted on 07/17/2010 10:48:35 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

A lot like you and me?

Umm, I don’t get drunk and head off into uncontrolled lunatic anti Semitism at a traffic stop. I don’t break up with my wife after a full quiver (!!!) of kids for a shack up Russian honey who more and more appears like the bait in a honey trap.

It’s almost as if he extracted all the good out of himself in creating the Passion, and all he has left is the evil. May God have mercy on his soul. I don’t believe that his first bunch of kids will...


12 posted on 07/17/2010 10:51:49 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

Maybe he’s lost his mind because on one hand he claims to be a Christian and on the other hand is mired in sin — his ongoing adulterous relationship with this woman is just one example. Such tension — and the energy poured into denying the Holy Spirit — drives you crazy.

He needs to leave his religion, repent, and turn to Christ. Christ will help Mel come to his right mind.


13 posted on 07/17/2010 10:56:15 AM PDT by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

Mel’s divorce is not yet final. I am praying that they’ll get back together.


14 posted on 07/17/2010 11:43:37 AM PDT by bboop (We don't need no stinkin' VAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

SSPX priests are not validly ordained. That’s the whole point of bringing them back in the episcopal fold so that they can be validly ordained. It’s no different than if you or I were to declare ourselves a priest.


15 posted on 07/17/2010 11:45:31 AM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jackspyder

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin’s garbage cans in Wassilla are still revealing nothing out of the ordinary.


16 posted on 07/17/2010 12:13:19 PM PDT by Hillbillary (I know how to deal with Communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1951Boomer

And Gibson ain’t pickin’ my pocket...


17 posted on 07/17/2010 12:30:51 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Actually SSPX priests are validly ordained. The Church is absolutely clear on that point. That’s why SSPX priests can easily be incardinated into other orders or diocese if they so choose. They do not have to be (re)ordained. I have known two such priests.


18 posted on 07/17/2010 2:24:33 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Mel, Go back to church—go to the first Roman Catholic Church you can find and seek out the confessional. You were drunk, angry and placed in a position where you lost it. I will still go to your movies—I liked Errol Flynn’s films and he too hated Jews. Next time make a religious film. Maybe something on The books of Acts. Maybe Quo Vadis. Find forgiveness in good works. Use your God given talents to bring people to Christ.


19 posted on 07/17/2010 3:01:32 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

Whether he goes to a Roman Catholic Church or some other Christian church is irrelevant. He doesn’t need religion; he needs Jesus.


20 posted on 07/17/2010 7:59:12 PM PDT by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

They were excommunicated for ordaining people without the permission of the pope.

Unlike the protestants, their ordinations were licit (ie, performed under the correct form), however they are not valid. They haven’t been valid since Pope John Paul didn’t recognise them. That’s the problem. Everyone who was ordained by SSPX is not yet a priest of the Catholic church, not until they are brought back into full communion, and they accept the authority of the Pope.

The biggest effect of lifting the excommunioation is to bring their flocks back into the fold.


21 posted on 07/18/2010 10:06:30 AM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

You wrote:

“They were excommunicated for ordaining people without the permission of the pope.”

True.

“Unlike the protestants, their ordinations were licit (ie, performed under the correct form), however they are not valid.”

Sorry, you have that backwords. Licit means it would be “permitted” or “allowed”. Valid would mean it was “properly done” or “effective”. Please note that the Vatican does not doubt for a second that the 4 SSPX bishops are in fact bishops. The Vatican does not doubt for a single second that the men they ordained are really priests. What is not in doubt by the Vatican is that all of that was illicit - i.e. done withour permission.

I have seen this first hand. As I said, I know of more than one priest who was ordained as an SSPX priest who is now an FSSP priest. No conditional ordination was ever deemed necessary.

“They haven’t been valid since Pope John Paul didn’t recognise them. That’s the problem.”

Incorrect. Please note that all properly consecrated bishops are properly consecrated whether or not they are some how recognized by a pope. The pope does not need to recognize the bishop of Smolensk for him to be a REAL bishop. He’s Eastern Orthodox, and he’s a real bishop. Period.

“Everyone who was ordained by SSPX is not yet a priest of the Catholic church, not until they are brought back into full communion, and they accept the authority of the Pope.”

They are full priests. They just aren’t in full communion. Those are two separate issues. Again, look at the Eastern Orthodox. Are they validly ordained even though they are not members of the Catholic Church? Yes.

By the way, when the Society of St. John Vianney came back into full communion all they had to do was sign a piece of paper. No ordinations were necessary. http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm They were all validly ordained from the start.

“The biggest effect of lifting the excommunioation is to bring their flocks back into the fold.”

I hope so. That’s what we all want. What will not happen is a single conditional ordination of consecration, however. All of the SSPX priests will be accounted as priests and all of their bishops will be understood to be bishops. They were all validly but illicitly made so.

As Fr. Z notes:

Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now?

No. The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly consecrated. That hasn’t changed. They are still not reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. They are still suspended a divinis. They still have no permission to exercise ministry in the Church. They may not licitly ordain. They have no authority to establish parishes, etc.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

As the Ecclesia Dei committee has freely admitted:

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm


22 posted on 07/18/2010 11:44:13 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

“Please note that the Vatican does not doubt for a second that the 4 SSPX bishops are in fact bishops.”

Priests cannot make themselves bishops.

“The pope does not need to recognize the bishop of Smolensk for him to be a REAL bishop. He’s Eastern Orthodox, and he’s a real bishop. Period.”

Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. They’ve always had bishops and their priests are raised by the patriarch or their archbishops to the bishopric.

If the priest were to consecrate himself bishop, this is invalid. This is also problematic for all the ordinations performed by the bishops who elevated themselves.

Personally, bring them in, but don’t elevate the priests into bishops. Put them under the oversight of someone who has been validly and licitly conferred.


23 posted on 07/18/2010 4:01:57 PM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

You wrote:

“Priests cannot make themselves bishops.”

True. These four SSPX men were consecrated by two bishops. It was illicit, but valid.

“Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. They’ve always had bishops and their priests are raised by the patriarch or their archbishops to the bishopric.”

Yes, but the SSPX has always had a bishop too. First one, and then two bishops who were both consecrated DECADES before SSPX ever existed. Those two then made the other four bishops. All perfectly valid. All perfectly illicit.

“If the priest were to consecrate himself bishop, this is invalid. This is also problematic for all the ordinations performed by the bishops who elevated themselves.”

Right, but all of the bishops in question were consecrated by other bishops. No one “made himself a bishop” in the SSPX.

“Personally, bring them in, but don’t elevate the priests into bishops. Put them under the oversight of someone who has been validly and licitly conferred.”

I think that would be best. I believe, however, that Pope Benedict will generously allow three of the four bishops to continue on as bishops for the SSPX.


24 posted on 07/18/2010 4:25:45 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Ok I was mistaken. That’s a different problem entirely then. If they were elevated by a licitly consecrated bishop then they’ll stay bishops.

Ironically, SSPX is a much more serious breach than any of the Protestants, we never lost a bishop there.


25 posted on 07/18/2010 4:29:35 PM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Oh, I’m sorry to say we lost at least a few bishops to the Protestants. Mostly in Germany, Scandinavia and England. When you think about it we’re actually gaining bishops with SSPX! And soon that will happen (sort of) with the Anglicans too. Interesting times!


26 posted on 07/18/2010 4:36:22 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Who did we lose back then? We lost priests, yes, but I don’t believe any bishops.


27 posted on 07/18/2010 4:41:08 PM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Well, there were several German bishops if I recall correctly (The Peace of Augsburg mentioned them but not by name). Here are mentioned two but not by name: http://books.google.com/books?id=fIhb4-iBk6EC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=bishop+german+converted+to+Lutheranism&source=bl&ots=3_IoLqE66s&sig=x68V2ffXo3F9AGz4DE9H0PqKfLA&hl=en&ei=hpBDTIGIC4T0tgOjmIzSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=bishop%20german%20converted%20to%20Lutheranism&f=false

Although this says not a single German bishop did convert: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2543066

Huh! This one converted in the 19th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=gFZE8zTto20C&pg=PA333&dq=bishop+german+converted+to+Lutheranism&hl=en&ei=9JFDTPODPJTCsAOCq5DxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


28 posted on 07/18/2010 4:54:46 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

I did the same thing, glad to know I’m not the only one who caught that.


29 posted on 07/19/2010 4:38:13 PM PDT by ktscarlett66 (Face it girls....I'm older and I have more insurance....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66

I’m happy to give the general public leeway, but if someone’s being published I expect more. “Would of, should of, could of, might of” just doesn’t cut it. There are too many sites providing insight to typical grammatical errors.

And if one wants to make a name for themselves with writing, then they need to pay attention.


30 posted on 07/19/2010 5:17:26 PM PDT by bcsco (First there was Slick Willie. Now there's "Oil Slick" Barry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
TMZ also reported this. Something is odd about the tapes. It has been reported that she went to events with him AFTER the incident.

Some think the Russian secret police or Russian Mafia is behind it. If they are, then expect (in response to his ex-wife's statement that he has not ever been violent) one or more alleged mistresses to pop up who will claim to support Oksana that he indeed has been violent.

Did he really leave his wife for for crazy Oksana? I read that he and his wife had already separated in 2006.

31 posted on 07/19/2010 5:29:23 PM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Jesus is Mel’s only hope.


32 posted on 07/19/2010 9:38:51 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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