Jim Caviezel: How The Passion Changed Him

Catholic Exchange ^ | 1/30/04 | Tin Drake

[Ant_biter]

"This is not a "Catholic" movie. Or, at least, that's what Gibson says."

Please do not forget that a lot of consultants of the film are Catholic priests and scholars. Mel and Jim heard daily mass, received communion and confession from the Catholic priests during the film production.

[sinkspur]

Please do not forget that a lot of consultants of the film are Catholic priests and scholars.

I know. But Gibson has been careful to show his movie to evangelical Protestants, to conservative Jews, to a wide variety of people. He is not pushing his beliefs as a Catholic in this movie.

That's what will likely make it universally accepted.

[autopsy]

As it is written, so shall it be.

I like that!

[ultima ratio]

Do you seriously think if Gibson were not a traditional Catholic, this movie would ever have been made? I don't.

[ultima ratio]

I don't see it that way. If Gibson filmed Christ's confrontation with the Pharisees of his day, it would not annoy the Jews so much as the present day Catholic hierarchy. They are the new Pharisees who wish to substitute a phony man-made "tradition" for the true tradition created by the Holy Spirit. Jesus warned the Apostles about this: "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees."

[Possenti]

This is not a "Catholic" movie. Or, at least, that's what Gibson says.

I don't recall him saying exactly that - maybe he did, but there are many Eucharistic elements in the film. During the crucifixion, there are reportedly several flashbacks to the Last Supper, where Christ established the Blessed Sacrament. I often wonder if any of the non-Catholics will "get it." The Virgin Mary also plays a prominent part. Most protestants only recognize her during Christmas in Nativity scenes, and after that she's out of sight and out of mind.

Gibson, Caviezel and others also attended the (dreaded by some) traditional Latin Mass each day before filming.

Perhaps what Gibson meant was that he wants this movie to appeal to everyone, no matter what their faith.

[Antoninus]

They constantly call us names and suggest we're not as good as they are, yet not a single one of them yet has said one single word about Mel being a "schizmat", not one word of condemnation. Of course he shouldn't be condemned but then why are we?

Have you ever heard Mel Gibson come out in public and denigrate the Vatican, the Pope, the Mass, or other Catholics? I haven't. If he thinks these things, he keeps it to himself. Maybe if you guys did the same you wouldn't get such rough handling. Ever consider that?

[Fifthmark]

In regards to Mel Gibson's beliefs, you might find this excerpt from a recent Remnant article interesting:

"The final matter to be dealt with in Zoll’s AP story concerns Gibson himself. Zoll’s article states that Mel Gibson’s own leanings in the traditionalist movement are hard to discern. This is both sloppy reporting and the use of an emotional red herring. It is sloppy reporting in that Gibson stated in the Fall of 2002 that he no longer believed in an 'institutional Church.' This was reported in ZENIT at the time. This author knows that a traditionally minded Franciscan priest, Father Richard Trezza, who was under consideration for offering the Traditional Mass on the set of what was then called The Passion in the Spring of 2003, was told that he had been ordained too late (1986) to satisfy Gibson’s concern about the validity of a man’s ordination to the priesthood. That seems pretty clear to me where Mel Gibson has allied himself. And it doesn’t take a particularly arduous amount of work to uncover these facts."

[sinkspur]

If the Remnant is to be believed (a VERY BIG "if"), Gibson sounds like a sedevacantist. Is that what you're saying?

If so, sending his movie to the Vatican was disingenuous.

[Gumdrop]

How did the discussion descend to a question about Mel's faith, whether traditional or a throw-back? The article was about jim Caviezel, not Mel. Jim sounds like he's a very serious Christian believer. I read an article about his in a Catholic journal when the Count of Monte Christo was being released. It said that his faith was very strong and he had turned down several movie roles that he felt were offensive to his moral beliefs; also he would refuse and role that would make him do a bedroom scene that he thought was immoral. He is married; has been married for a few years now to a long-time girl friend, I believe he met her at school. He sounds like he's really outside the Hollywood crowds' social circles. I hope he has continued success, but this role may be the end of the line for him.

[Antoninus]

In regards to Mel Gibson's beliefs, you might find this excerpt from a recent Remnant article interesting: In regards to Mel Gibson's beliefs, you might find this excerpt from a recent Remnant article interesting:

First of all, I don't consider The Remnant a credible source.

Second of all, my comment was: "Have you ever heard Mel Gibson come out in public and denigrate the Vatican, the Pope, the Mass, or other Catholics?" If Mel is an SSPXer or a sedevacantist, that's irrelevant. My point was to compare his words and actions (or lack thereof) to those of the ultra-trads on FR. Mel is not trying to convince people that the Pope is evil, or that the Mass is invalid, or that other Catholics are idiots for attending NO Masses.

From what I can tell, he's using his medium and his money to try to change the Church by attacking the true villain that has been assaulting her for the past 40-odd years--the poisonous, satanic, anti-Christian culture in the Western world. That's a huge task and I support ANY Christian who is willing to take it on.

[dsc]

"From what I can tell, he's using his medium and his money to try to change the Church by attacking the true villain that has been assaulting her for the past 40-odd years--the poisonous, satanic, anti-Christian culture in the Western world. That's a huge task and I support ANY Christian who is willing to take it on."

Well said.

"If Mel is an SSPXer or a sedevacantist"

From what I've read, I don't think he is.

"My point was to compare his words and actions (or lack thereof) to those of the ultra-trads on FR. Mel is not trying to convince people that the Pope is evil, or that the Mass is invalid, or that other Catholics are idiots for attending NO Masses."

I come in peace, Kemosabe. I just want to ask why Catholics can't in good faith wonder why Mahoney is still in business, why the Holy Father has elevated slimy sleazebuckets to become bishops and cardinals, why he kissed the Koran, why he says good things about breakdancing, why so many bishops are allowed to flout the Holy Father's call for a wide and generous application of the indult, why the seminaries were allowed to become pink palaces, and on and on?

Has anybody really called people idiots for attending NO masses? I attended one this morning. The best thing to say about it was that the priest and one of the lectors were men.

The music was abysmal. Sometimes I can hardly restrain myself from running up to the loft and smashing that bloody guitar. During the worst ditty of all (I wouldn't dignify it by calling it a hymn) I suddenly realized that the woman behind me was singing along enthusiastically. Does that make her an idiot? No, I wouldn't say so, but I would say that it means she's been hornswoggled out of a good deal of her rightful heritage.

The priest worked a plug for liberation theology into his homily, which was primarily on the theme that Christian denominations are not "in competition" with each other, and that Catholics shouldn't think they're any "better than" Baptists or other Christians, which all managed to contradict the position that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Revelation, while other denominations reject some parts thereof. He also managed to communicate that evangelization is a bad thing to do.

On the good side, I've been praying intensely that the last two of my five children will come into the Church, and this morning my older daughter (16, and confirmed) came into my office while I was getting ready for Mass and said that my younger daughter (11, and not yet baptised, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) wanted to go with us.

Thank you, Regina Coeli, thank you, Saint Joseph, Saint Jude, Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, and Saint Matthew, thank you Lord Jesus Christ.

During Mass, I was wishing that my younger daughter were witnessing the full majesty of the traditional church, with magnificent vestments and music. Her only comment was to compare the Mass unfavorably with one she'd seen in a movie.

I prayed intensely on my way to receive, received on the tongue, and prayed intensely after receiving, and I believe that I received a valid Sacrament in the proper spirit.

But how much better it would have been to have been blessed with a traditional Latin Mass with traditional music, for me and especially for my daughters.

Can't you give people space for thinking that the traditional Catholic Church was better than much of what one sees now without having to go to war with them for it?

[ultima ratio]

Sounds to me as if Mel Gibson, like a lot of traditionalists, doesn't believe the conciliar Church is truly Catholic.

[ultima ratio]

This comment of yours is a red herring: "My point was to compare his words and actions (or lack thereof) to those of the ultra-trads on FR. Mel is not trying to convince people that the Pope is evil, or that the Mass is invalid, or that other Catholics are idiots for attending NO Masses."

1. No traditionalists have ever stated on this site that the pope is evil. Nor have I ever read this in any traditionalist publication nor heard this from any traditionalist pulpit. Certainly this has never been stated on this site by anyone. I myself have called the Pope ineffectual. I have said he does not use his authority appropriately. I have said he was wrong to kiss the Koran and to organize Assisi prayer meetings. I have said he has written one thing but has done another. But I have never said he was "evil" nor ever called him a heretic. This is an unfair charge.

2. I have not read any traditionalist post on this site that ever claimed the Novus Ordo is invalid--though I've read a lot of claims by non-trads that we think this. I have myself stated many times the new Mass is clearly--if celebrated as intended--valid. But I have also stated it is dangerous to the faith because it subverts Catholic dogmas and emphasizes Protestant elements condemned by Trent. It is therefore very deficient, though valid. That is an important distinction that should be understood.

3. Charging traditionalists with calling fellow Catholics idiots for attending the Novus Ordo Mass is another example of demonizing traditionalists for saying things we never say. The truth is, on these threads the main thrust by us has always been substantive--we focus on the catastrophe that has befallen the Church after Vatican II and after the introduction of the new Mass. We are not interested in attacking fellow Catholics, but on restoring our rightful Catholic heritage. In fact, if there is any name-calling going on, it's usually from the other side, not from us.

[AAABEST]

Mel is not trying to convince people that the Pope is evil, or that the Mass is invalid, or that other Catholics are idiots for attending NO Masses.

Well I usually don't enjoy a back and forth with people who frame things falsely, which if you meant the above you are most certainly doing.

I nor anyone else I've heard here claim the Pope is evil. He's a good man who we love dearly that has done some very sinful and very wrong things. Even his staunchest supporters don't claim him to be infallible, and he's not. Maybe much is out of his hands or maybe he's not a very good Pope. It's hard to tell and I don't want to judge him, because I'm not qualified to do so.

As far as the NO-masses, well the enemey has penetrated them for sure. This is unquestionable. Invalid? I haven't used that term yet, I can't judge them in such a fashion. I know that I have no desire whatsoever and every time I attend one my values and intelligence is put under assault.

Can you point out where any of us have called any of our fellow Catholics idiots for attending no Masses? I certainly haven't done so.

Although I would love nothing more than to get them into a mass where there is purity and the Holy Spirit is unencumbered and His body is treated with the respect it deserves I've never called them idiots.

Most of the name calling REALLY has been for the most part directed at us. I've experienced very some personal spitting anger, even hatred. Which is OK, it's just troubling.

Did you read my #15? As a stated I think he's much harsher than even any of us have been.

I honestly don't see the logic behind the paradox.

[AAABEST]

How did the discussion descend to a question about Mel's faith, whether traditional or a throw-back?

Actually my question was for NYer in particular, because I was curious. He/she really has taken after us and condemned us very harshly in the past yet seems to laud Mel and put him on a pedestal.

For the record I think Mel should be lauded and put on a pedestal and I certainly don't think I or the other trads should be. I'm just having some trouble resolving the dichotomy.

[AAABEST]

BTW I hope you don't think any of what I'm saying here is directed at you. I don't know you that well yet but you seem very measured and reasonable.

Actually more measured and reasonable than I! LOL.

[american colleen]

Just found this site which lists which theatre's will be showing "The passion of Christ" click on your state.

[Maeve]

Bump

[Ant_biter]

"If Gibson filmed Christ's confrontation with the Pharisees of his day, it would not annoy the Jews so much as the present day Catholic hierarchy. They are the new Pharisees who wish to substitute a phony man-made "tradition" for the true tradition created by the Holy Spirit. Jesus warned the Apostles about this: "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.""


Hallo, we Catholics read the bible too and we do not just pick and choose verses. If Mel’s film is faithful to the gospels, then, we Catholics will be more than willing to support it. Please do not make absurd accusation without basis.

There will always be some bad elements in the church just as Judas is one of the twelve, which is equivalent to 8.33 percent. Certainly, the church should not be discredited based on these “failed” members. On the other hands, miraculous events in Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portuguese are enough proofs for me that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church.