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

here's a link to the the full review:

USCCB Review [usccb.org]

Thanks, Fr Deacon John, for the link. The review seems very balanced. I haven't seen the movie myself but hope to this weekend.

Though I found much of the USCCB review good, I do offer my own opinion here:

//However, by choosing to narrow his focus almost exclusively to the Passion of Christ, Gibson has, perhaps, muted Christ's teachings, making it difficult for viewers unfamiliar with the New Testament and the era's historical milieu to contextualize the circumstances leading up to Jesus' arrest. And though, for Christians, the Passion is the central event in the history of salvation, the "how" of Christ's death is lingered on at the expense of the "why?"//

Interesting how the historical process of the Gospel writing is ignored. The Passion Narrative, the longest continuous narrative in all four Gospels, signifies one of the few �chronological� narratives period. Catholic biblical scholars have noted how the development or growth of the Gospel tradition began with the Passion-Paschal tradition first BEFORE the teaching traditions were included. This is their predominate theory. Matthew and Luke would later add an Infancy Narrative. John would much later add a Pre-Existence part. For many 1st-century Jews and non-Jews, they were not familiar with the teachings of Jesus at first. The Passion-Paschal Narrative only was an invitation. Pieces and parts of Jesus� life are also littered in the Pauline writings, which come much earlier than the first Gospel written. The scope of Mel Gibson�s Passion film takes viewers back to the pre-teaching traditions of Jesus, namely his Passion story. The narrative will naturally lead the viewer/reader to ask: why? One can leave with the same question �why?� by only attending a Stations of the Cross too.

//It loses nothing by using the languages of the time, Aramaic and Latin, as the actors' expressions transcend words, saying as much - if not more than - the English subtitles.//

Will the Latin Church bring back Latin?

//Catholics viewing the film should recall the teachings of the Second Vatican Council's decree, "Nostra Aetate," which affirms that, "though Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion."//

From bible study classes, the question was raised about Stephen�s death. Whereas only Romans practiced crucifixion for capital punishments or treason, the Jews did use stoning as their own form of capital punishment. Remember the woman caught in adultery? (We�ll forget about the men caught in adultery). How about James, the brother of the Lord? Yet, his killer was severely reprimanded. But Jesus is a different story. The Romans were the active means of his death in a Jewish region. I wonder how our own bishops would respond to Nostra Aetate with our own Good Friday Matins sticheron: �The assembled crowd demanded that Pilate crucify You, O Lord � They called down the weight of this crime upon themselves �� (Antiphon XIII). Should this sticheron in the Byzantine tradition be edited or removed?

//However, the most visually distinctive representatives of Jewish authority - the High Priest Caiphas (Matia Sbragia) and those in the Sanhedrin aligned with him � do come across as almost monolithically malevolent. Caiphas is portrayed as adamant and unmerciful and his influence on Pilate is exaggerated.//

St. Stephen had a few words with the Sanhedrin, but earned a quick stoning. The movie DID depict a number of priests who declared the whole proceeding in his courtyard a joke. I got the impression that these priests were trying to paint a picture of a kangaroo court. They were quickly dismissed for their un-politically correct statements. The Gospel does mention �false charges� being brought against Jesus.

//Conversely, Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov) is almost gentle with Jesus, even offering his prisoner a drink. This overly sympathetic portrayal of the procurator as a vacillating, conflicted and world-weary backwater bureaucrat, averse to unnecessary roughness and easily coerced by both his Jewish subjects and his conscience-burdened wife, does not mesh with the Pilate of history remembered by the ancient historians as a ruthless and inflexible brute responsible for ordering the execution of hundreds of Jewish rabble-rousers without hesitation.//

Again, the USCCB should read their Scriptures. Pilate�s wife DID play a role in putting the notion in Pilate�s ear not to have anything to do with Jesus (�this man�). The Gospels, not ancient historians, fail to mention ANYTHING of the Pilate of history outside his role in the Passion. Pilate, according to the Gospels, was a �vacillating, conflicted and world-weary backwater bureaucrat.� But the USCCB folks are mixing up their 21st century understanding of the historical Pilate with the Pilate of the Gospels. Isn�t Pilate venerated as a saint in some churches along with Emperor Constantine? The Gospels DO show a pass-the-buck procedure of sending Jesus to Herod and then back. Wasn�t this a vacillation?

//The Roman soldiers are unimaginably -- even gleefully-- sadistic in flaying Jesus to within an inch of his life. "The Passion" is exceedingly graphic in its portrayal of the barbarities of Roman justice.//

How can one portray a scourging/flogging without being too �exceedingly?� This was no massage at the local spa.

//In the end, such savagery may be self-defeating in trying to capture the imagination of the everyday moviegoer.//

As an artist and filmmaker, Mel Gibson has often stated that the purpose of the savagery was to push the viewer to the �edge.� Only Evil can portray savagery in a antiseptic way, whereby we just shrug it off like another evening news episode. The imagination is captured � and often with stone silence after the film ends.

//Cinematically, there are flaws as well as triumphs in Gibson's film, such as a recurring tendency to slip into the horror-genre conventions, including a scene of a guilt-wracked Judas being taunted by little boys whose faces turn into those of grotesque, macabre ghouls.//

Can anyone go into the mind and heart of one who finally realized that he betrayed an innocent person? There are several accounts of how Judas eventually killed himself (either by hanging or throwing himself off a cliff). Can we add a few more? But just as the USCCB pointed out how it thought the film had the �how� begging for the �why� in Jesus� death, they seem to chide at Mel�s attempt to do just that in Judas� case. �Judas joined forces with the Devil� (Good Friday Matins, Antiphon IV, Tone 5). Horror-genre conventions are needed to fill the void when such details are missing in the Gospel narrative. We even sing at Good Friday Matins, �How could he [Judas] see clearly?� (cf. same Antiphon mentioned above). One �blinded by his love for money� and not seeing clearly and with the weight of betraying the Lord, one can begin to �see� many ghouls. Despair can lead one to suicide. Mel wasn't the first person to use such ghouls prior to one committing suicide. He had artistic license here. Like any "stock" job review, one can see how it is necessary(?) to include typical genres of light criticism to imply room for improvement.

Joe

Joe,

Did you read The Dolorous Passion on the link I posted on the other thread ? I finished it yesterday and will compare it with the movie today.

james

I just heard this while channel-surfing on the AM radio.

Today, Rush Limbaugh made some comments about the waffling of the USCCB in regards to the Passion movie.

Rush basically stated that these bishops are �gutless people.� He asked, �How can gutless people stand up for Christ?�

Rush also made another good point: �I know anti-Semitism when I see it; its all over the Middle East .. its in France ��

The USCCB, after witnessing how its church members are going to see the movie in droves, �want back in.�

Today, a new report about the extant of the sex scandals came out. Supposedly, over 4,000 priests were involved and thousands more innocent children.

Gutless wonders.

Needless to say, Rush liked the movie like most who have seen it ...

The losers:
1. Hollywood.
2. The USCCB.
3. Liberal Biblical Scholars.
4. The New York Times et al.
5. Andy Rooney.
6. Artists who display crucifixes in urine.
7. Artists who display Mary with dung on it.

Joe

"Ditto" brother Joe

james

Joe,

I think the Bishop's report is a bit gutless. But that's true of most of the things they've done at least as long as I've been a Catholic. However, they at least don't openly attack the movie. On the other hand, if they did, they might not be gutless, just wrong.

Thank God for Mel Gibson. At least he isn't gutless.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

At least they didn't deliver their report on stationary with the letterhead from the Church of Academia ... :rolleyes:

Joe

But of course, they could have. :rolleyes:

Dan L

... tainted forum members, dismantlers of morality, enemy bishops, ...

Now this lovely thread...

Still in doubt?

My point exactly, thanks. Don

Joe,

I agree with your first post 100%.

And I must agree with Dan in admitting that, although they are our holy hierarchs, many of the bishops in the USCCB seem to be "a bit gutless."

It's a shame, but then again the USCCB doesn't make the rules of the Faith, thank God.

Logos Teen

djs and Don,

Do you guys have a persecution complex? I'm just wondering, not judging. But then, would you recognize it if you did? I asked one woman when she first became an alcoholic. She said she wasn't an alcoholic. She had already nearly killed herself three times while drunk as a skunk. She was very close to me. She eventually died of complications due to alcohol poinsoning including alcohol induced dimentia.

Self delusion is a difficult thing to admit.

Dan Lauffer

I'm more concerned with people who DO go to see it and emerge with their preconceived anti-Catholic notions intact, than with people who would prefer not to see it and, therefore, don't.

For example, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, who wrote what is in my opinion an absolutely ridiculous article today titled "Stations of the Crass", in which she exposes the "intolerance" of both Mel Gibson and President Bush.

Here's what she wrote after seeing "The Passion" with "a Jewish pal":

(Frankly, if Maureen really came out of this movie wanting to kick out someone's teeth, I think that says more about HER than about the movie!)

As for the President, well, he's obviously just as bigoted as Gibson because he's opposed to gay marriage.

Maybe she just should have stayed home and watched TV.

Dan,

I don't feel persecuted, and I don't think that I am delusional in that feeling. There was one of your posts, however, that seemed, in context, to be directed toward me, and about which I sought some elucidation - but received no reply.

Btw, hard to call that post "wondering".


Or, perhaps, that one.