www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall USCCB review of "The Passion of Christ"

I'm confused, Dan, to which report are you referring?

Father Deacon,

The one you linked us with. Have I misunderstood its origin as the USConference of Catholic Bishops?

Dan L

Dan,

if you are referring to the movie review that I linked from the USCCB website, I would hardly call a movie review "the Bishops' report". The review is put out by the Office for Film and Broadcasting which is served by a small (and non-episcopal) staff in NYC. This is a service offered by the USCCB.

Father Deacon,

Have the bishops made any official comment on the movie as far as you know? Have any of the bishops made any comment at all?

Dan L

A little background on Joe's report of what he heard on AM radio yesterday.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040226-113738-4289r.htm

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/thepassion/institute.guest.html

Limbaugh's comments were motivated by the Washington Star article on the Review linked at the beginning of the thread. From the Star:

The embedded quotes are from the review.
Of course, the problem with this report is obvious. What are these critical remarks that are not quoted? In what way, if any, are they linked to the USCCB? Are they talking about the remarks made in a private report to Gibson and company done by an ad hoc panel which included some memebers of the named USCCB committee, but which was not acting on behalf of the USCCB - a fact made known by the USCCB quite some time ago? (And that Joe has made repeatedly on this forum.)
If so, categorizing the review as a "retraction" is wicked spin that twists credibility beyond the breaking point.

And this tendentious article is the point of departure for Limbaugh's attack on the bishops of the Catholic church.

Limbaugh repeatedly makes the error of identifying Gibson's movie with the actual Passion of Christ and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Actually, it would have been the height of irresponsiblity - not guts - for the overseers of the Catholic church to "stand up for this" when "this" is Gibson's deeply personal work" (from the review) not that of the Bishops, or work over which they had any official input let alone control. I am delighted that Gibson's movie turned out to be very Catholic, by all accounts. I don't know how this could have been predicted, however, in advance of the release.

On the anti-Semitism issue. Limbaugh acknowledges (and in greater detail on his site) that anti-Semitism is not only a significant part of our past, but a continuing contemporary problem - as rampant now as in the 1930's. In this regard, vigilance was called for; calls by people in various quarters for Gibson to be attentive to this issue were reponsible, not scared or gutless. Limbaugh is dead wrong, IMO, to suggest that {the USCCB] had "no business" in talking about this. And again, he confuses the Scripture and screenplay: "What business did you people have saying it was anti-Semitic anyway? You know that there's no anti-Semitism in the story of the crucifixion." Evidently, Gibson did make some adjustments to his film. Good for him. The released version is not seen by many as having potential to inflame contemporaneous anti-Semitism. Good for us all. And it is also good, IMO that the review still reminds us:

And where does this idea that the USCCB "wants in" come from? What, on earth does it mean?

Overall, I find Limbaugh's attack on our Bishops to be highly objectionable. It is grossly misinformed, and littered with personal assaults that are not supported in this commentary by facts.

Thiest Gal wrote:
Maybe she just should have stayed home and watched TV

Yep, she could have saved $9 like Andy Rooney

Seriously,

May God have mercy on their souls, that there be a complete conversion to Him in their lives. May this movie bring about conversion in the lives of many who have never heard of Christ otherwise, who have never taken time to read the Gospels, or are in need of knowing how much they are loved, along with all of us who have needs of any sorts.

God can use any avenue He so chooses, but this time He is using the "silver screen." May we all be His instruments.

Pani Rose

//Limbaugh repeatedly makes the error of identifying Gibson's movie with the actual Passion of Christ and the teaching of the Catholic Church.//

I believe Limbaugh spoke on this topic before and never gave the impression that the movie WAS in place of the Gospel or the Gospel itself. Rush has always noted the issue of those who want to belittle it (according to Paula Frederickson, the movie was Mel�s own version of old Latin Catholicism � read: too pre-Vatican II for her). Many church leaders have acted like the boy who cried wolf. While Orthodox rabbis were reprimanding Foxman (head of the ADL) for his cries of anti-Semitism, Catholics bishops were sending out memos warning of POTENTIAL anti-Semitism. Why warn ordinary lay people when Catholic bishops have a worse history of anti-Semitism? In his book, �Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal,� author David France writes this about Pope Pius XII:

�� in August 1942, Andrej Septyckyj, a Ukrainian churchman, wrote begging the pope to denounce the killing of more than two hundred thousand Ukrainian Jews. The pope wrote back, failing again to address the atrocities. Instead, he quoted Psalms and advised Septyckyj and his companions to �bear adversity with serene patience.��

//Actually, it would have been the height of irresponsiblity - not guts - for the overseers of the Catholic church to "stand up for this" when "this" is Gibson's deeply personal work" (from the review) not that of the Bishops, or work over which they had any official input let alone control.//

I do believe that the bishops do assign ratings to movies. I am not aware that all the movies they rate were produced by them as their work. So, pointing out that the work was Mel Gibson�s own is beside the point. The more critical factor that is being forgotten in your statement is that Mel is not affiliated with those bishops. Not only is Mel�s movie out of their hands, Mel himself is too. It was also a sign of irresponsibility to allow a bunch of liberal biblical scholars to use their letterhead.

//I am delighted that Gibson's movie turned out to be very Catholic, by all accounts. I don't know how this could have been predicted, however, in advance of the release.//

It was easily predicted. Listen to what the Dominic Crossans and Paula Fredericksons are saying, and believe the opposite.

//On the anti-Semitism issue. Limbaugh acknowledges (and in greater detail on his site) that anti-Semitism is not only a significant part of our past, but a continuing contemporary problem - as rampant now as in the 1930's.//

Yes. Militant Muslims and the religion of Islam is the greater threat to Judaism � as noted by several Jewish leaders. Jews and Christians are both considered unbelievers, hence in the same boat.

//In this regard, vigilance was called for; calls by people in various quarters for Gibson to be attentive to this issue were reponsible, not scared or gutless.//

Any intelligent person producing a film that is recognizably anti-Semitic is plain stupid. It would be like a drunk driving by a cop holding his or her empty wine bottle out the window. Gibson was attentive to these issues, but does that change our Scriptures? Will our Byzantine Church now invite the ADL and liberal biblical scholars to study our Good Friday services? Many of our hymns place the blame game right on the shoulders of the Jewish leaders. You can shoot me for saying that, but I am only the messenger of what is stated in our liturgical texts.

//Limbaugh is dead wrong, IMO, to suggest that {the USCCB] had "no business" in talking about this.//

That wasn�t his point. He was wondering where they were all along. The flip-flops are now history, but now that Catholics are seeing it in droves, the bishops will look pretty bad when Catholics leave the cinemas wondering what the fuss was all about. And to think that it was made by a traditionalist Latin Catholic who doesn�t fit their mold. Will their �warning memos� be taken seriously in the future? Come on!, a report was just issued on how many Chester-the-molester clerics were out there since 1950. How many bishops were warning us then? Think about it: they played the �defensive listening� and �denials games� for years, and of course, the turkey dance with molesting priests (and bishops) being sent here and there, and then turn around to issue warnings about the POTENTIAL anti-Semitic reactions that may result?!? Give me a break. Where is leadership in that? When I was in the seminary, we were chewed out for not supporting our fellow brother (who was homosexual) by half the student body boycotting his ordination (but after our formal complaints were ignored), whereas one seminarian was given three days to pack his bags and leave for getting it on with a female employee of the school. We saw the problem long time ago and all our warnings were rebutted.

//Evidently, Gibson did make some adjustments to his film. Good for him. The released version is not seen by many as having potential to inflame contemporaneous anti-Semitism.//

As Jewish scholar, Dr. Levine, stated on Primetime, it isn�t good to alter history. If the Jews said �let his blood be on us and on our children� then they said it. Mel might have not given it a subtitle, but it is still in the movie, but in the background and in Aramaic. Mel was sensitive, but that verse is still in our Scriptures. He did state that a minute of film would not justify a complete understanding of that highly theological verse.

This highly sensitive verse (Matthew 27:25) harkens back to the book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 26:15 we read: �But mark well: if you put me to death, it is innocent blood you bring on yourselves, on this city and its citizens.� This verse serves as the typos for the verse in Matthew�s Gospel. The priests and prophets also laid hands upon Jeremiah and shouted: �You must be put to death!� There, they brought Jeremiah to the princes of Judah. Court was held at the Gate of the house of the Lord. The princes were told that Jeremiah �deserves death.� (Jer 26:11) In his defense, Jeremiah the Prophet spoke these words:

�"The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the things you have heard. Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you. As for me, I am in your hands; do with me whatever you think is good and right. Be assured, however, that if you put me to death, you will bring the guilt of innocent blood on yourselves and on this city and on those who live in it, for in truth the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing."

At the end of the chapter, Jeremiah was not handed over to be put to death.

Does this not remind you of the scenario of Jesus� own trial? Here, the princely ruler was split between the Roman Pilate and the Jewish leader, Caiaphas. A different ending was in store for Jesus. Whereas Jeremiah was not handed over to the people to be put to death, Jesus was handed over, but to the Romans, to be put to death. Matthew makes us think when we review Jeremiah�s speech where he talks about bringing the guilt of innocent blood on themselves.

The Jewish people were not always faithful to God. Many prophets within Judaism died unfortunate deaths and innocent. The Assyrian Conquest of the north (Isreal) and the later destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Babylonians in the south also remain as testimony of what will happen when God is forgotten.

But Matthew 27:25 cannot be best explained in a film and in passing without a literal reading implying that only Jews are solely responsible for the death of Jesus. There is no equation when the only people there were Jews. As Mel stated, there were no Norwegians there.

Mel�s removal of Matthew 27:25 was only partial, not complete.

Now, it is interesting how another recent movie, The Gospel of John, was not criticized as heavily for its attempt to rewrite the Gospel. They do say this about the movie:

"Faithful word-for-word version (narrated by Christopher Plummer) of the life, ministry and death of Jesus Christ, as recounted by the fourth evangelist."

Their complete review can be found at:
http://www.usccb.org/movies/g/thegospelofjohn.htm

Yet nowhere in the review do they mention Mary Magdalen attending the Last Supper or being in the Garden of Gethsemane, which was not really a faithful version. How did they miss these? Is it a bigger crime to leave a verse in than to include many that were never there?

But this all seems to mesh well with the Da Vinci Code believers. But it is better for one to be sacrificed (Mel Gibson and his Traditionalist Latin Catholicism) than to have a whole angry crowd of feminists and Mary Magdalen folks after them.

I did find a review by one Catholic bishop on The Da Vinci Code book at:

http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/2003-12-18/bishop.html

This brings me back to one of the main battles going on in biblical scholarship. The canonical versus the non-canonical or legend. The Church of Constantine, which is full of anti-women male pigs, and the Church of Mary Magdalen, which was squashed early on in Christianity's history and that is finally being given attention to.

Joe

He certainly made that error in the remarks I quoted. Standing up for the movie is not Standing up for the Gospel; Ambivalence toward the movie is not ambivalence to the Gospel.

A "standing up" for the movie by the Bishops before its release would have been irresponsible, unless they were party to its production. That is the point.

Who is Mel's Bishop?

I missed the letter. But I won't dispute this little issue. You have made several remarks here on the statement of the USCCB that the work of this ad hoc committe not undertaken for the USCCB. Accordingly, the recent review cannot logically be taken as a retraction by the USCCB, unless you can come up with the smoking prior statement of the USCCB.

No we will do this ourselves. Do you really see an authoritative equivalence between the teaching by the church and Gibson's movie making?

The Washington Star invents the flip - which you yourself have contradicted here - takes the recent review as the flop; Limbaugh picks up the column and pronounces gutless waffling. It's all building up and knocking down straw men. Why are you interested in buying into this attack?

Ah yes, here it is: St. Maximos wannabeism. This kind of standing tall is so popular in American mythos, but at the basic level it is just "private judgment": here I stand, I cannot do elsewise, so help me God.

Precisely. No one is re-writing history, but making a film with the appreciation that films are not history but theater. Good thinking by Mel. And maybe the feedback he got from the ad hoc committee not authorized by the USCCB helped a little.

The "crime" IMO is in claiming authenticity, faithfulness, etc. Such claims, I believe, are entirely appropriate for the church. In the case of individuals, however, I am sceptical: even if they turn out to be speaking truth, claims of authority show a breath-taking arrogance that puts me on edge.

djs,

Should the USCCB take the Mary Magdalen factor in The Gospel of John film head-on? or would that open a bigger can of worms than the potentiality of anti-Semitism?

The recently published report on Chester-the-Molester priests since 1950 also put me on edge, especially from those who are given authority.

Joe

I disagree with djs. At no time did Rush Limbaugh equate the movie with the teaching of the Catholic Church. I occasionally have the opportunity to listen to his show when I run errands at lunchtime. These past few days he has discussed the movie and has always been very careful to note only that Gibson has attempted to be very faithful to the Catholic understanding of the Gospels regarding the Crucifixion.

If taken in context with remarks he made in previous days, what Rush is rallying against is the Catholic bishops decision to jump on the �Lets assume it�s anti-Semitic until proven otherwise� bandwagon long before their experts actually saw the movie. The more recent USCCB statement is a retraction of their earlier opinion now that they have actually seen the movie.

Given that the bishops have not spoken to the growing immorality within our society, to priests who have abused children (until forced to by the larger society), to politicians who champion their Catholicism but vote against Catholic morality, I�d say that Limbaugh�s analysis is dead on.

I highly recommend listening all of the clips from yesterday�s program at his website.

I am seeing the movie tonight.

Well, there's a lot of pronouns here, but ISTM that Limbaugh is clearly identifying Gibson's interests with the Bishop's. This identification serves as a basis for the charge of gutlessness - they are not standing up for the faith by not standing up for Gibson. Rubbish. Perhaps he said this better on other days.

Please provide a link to "their earlier opinion", in particular, the �Lets assume it�s anti-Semitic until proven otherwise� idea. What are you talking about?

The argument about whether the Bishop's reaction to Gibson's movie is scared and gutless must, logically, be made on its own merits: the potential fact that gutlessness is evidenced in other matters is not probative; it is mere ad hominem fallacy. Please let's not champion this type of fallacious argument.

And what is his point? I understand when he plays these rhetorical games with "liberals" and Democrats, his intentions are clear: to defeat them. What is he hoping ot achieve with Catholics?

I think that the reviewer was remiss in not pointing out the highly novel nature of such action, while emphasizing the verbatim nature of the screenplay. I also think that the movie makers, in introducing such novelties within an apparently "faithful" rendering are misleading the audience. But is the Da Vinci thing taken seriously in any scholarly arenas?

I agree.

Limbaugh was pretty clear and I don�t know how you missed it. What he said was that the bishops joined the chorus of people concerned about anti-Semitism before even seeing the script or the movie and that they were wrong for doing so.

What Limbaugh is saying is that the bishops were wrong for condemning the movie last year for being anti-Semitic even before they read the script or saw the movie. I remember the story, when one of the subcommittees issued a press release raising concern about the movie being anti-Semitic. One can claim that the press release did not reflect the opinion of the entire USCCB but they never issued a clarification or retraction so the opinion stood until after the movie actually opened and they issued a revised movie review. I think Limbaugh is correct. The Passion of Christ is a topic the bishops should be experts at. It is well known that the Jesuits played a central role in making sure that the script was faithful to the Gospels. The bishops should have either given the benefit of the doubt to Gibson, consulted with the Jesuits who were part of the making of the movie, or taken the time to watch the movie or read the script before they joined the chorus raising concerns of anti-Semitism.

I�m talking about the condemnation of the film issued by the USCCB subcommittee on movies issued last year. It got a lot of press when Gibson was making the rounds on the various news shows. I remember one of the people on CNN throwing it into Gibson�s face that his own Church was complaining it was not faithful to the Gospels and was anti-Semitic. I cannot find last April's review on the USCCB website but I found a news story in yesterday�s Washington Times [washtimes.com] that included the following:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) retracted critical remarks made about the film last April by its ecumenical and interreligious committee, which suggested that the film might be anti-Semitic.

In remarks released Wednesday on Catholic News Service, three staff members of the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting said the film might be overly violent but not anti-Semitic.

"Concerning the issue of anti-Semitism, the Jewish people are at no time blamed collectively for Jesus' death," said a review by Gerri Pare, David DiCerto and Anne Navarro. "Rather, Christ freely embraces his destiny."

The reviewers went on to call the movie "an artistic achievement in terms of its textured cinematography, haunting atmospherics, lyrical editing, detailed production and soulful score."

I disagree. The bishops have established a pattern of behavior of putting being liked ahead of righteousness. Their behavior regarding their original critical remarks is simply another example of playing it safe with their remarks to avoid anyone criticizing them.

I can�t speak for Limbaugh. You�ll have to call him and ask him. My guess (based upon listening to him on occasion over the years) is that he is calling the Catholic bishops to speak forcefully and with authority to address the ills of our society. They are too often silent.

I did not miss what Limbaugh said: I already quoted the passage that you re-post. He steps beyond the "why assume Anti-Semitism" in the last sentence of the paragraph that I've quoted twice:
What is "this" and how it is "about them"?

Here again there is an identification of "it" (the movie) with the scripture (the story of the crucifixion) and with the teaching of the church ("what you do").

I hope it wasn't hard to find the Times article, it was quoted and linked (like the Limbaugh transcript) in my post - which I am getting the feeling you did not read. You claim a "condemnation" by the USCCB subcommittee on movies, but the Times is talking about "critical remarks made ... by [the USCCB's] ecumenical and interreligious committee. This comment sounds like a reference to the ad hoc committee, which included some members also associated with the UCSSB, and which examined a version of the script and sent a critical report to Icon. They didn't like it, and Icon didn't like the report. Yadayadayada:

http://www.catholicleague.org/Passion/maligning.htm#note

The USCCB did not make or authorize the making of the criticism of the script. To claim that the recent review is a retraction of earlier remarks that cannot properly be attributed to the USCCB is absurd: one cannot retract remarks one has not made.

Fine. Champion logical fallacies if you wish.

I must agree with John. One of the problems with American Society is that those who should stand for something are actually Church functionaries who aren't really leaders at all. Didn't Jesus say something about when the "blind lead the blind they both fall in the ditch."

Without risk takers at the helm we can't lead the society but will only follow it. Thank God for our Pope but our American bishops ought to once again hang their heads in shame.

Dan L