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

Dan and Manuel,

as to the evangelizing potential of this movie, I can agree, but do we need bishops to tell us what any member of a parish community can discern. It seems both of you have seen the movie and realize its potential without any "official" word from on high. Dan, you make a good point about evangelism, it begins as an invitation.

Well, I wrote a review of the movie too, on my website [angelfire.com] .

The main thing that surprised me about the movie vs. the controversy is, I really didn't see it as being "too violent" - still can't figure out why all these reviewers are "shocked, just shocked" after movies like "Kill Bill", etc.

//Call me dense.//

Hello, dense!

//I do not understand why many who have posted on this topic deem it neccesary that a Catholic bishop need to endorse or comment upon Gibson's movie.//

The problem from the get-go was not the necessity of a Catholic bishop to endorse any movie, including Mel Gibson�s Passion film. The bishops do run their own review and rate movies. They made it their business, not Mel. Unfortunately, the bishops sided with those who were trying to make it to be something it wasn�t, including liberal biblical scholars. I find it disheartening that someone can have their work labeled with a warning for what it can POTENTIALLY do, but not those movies that are blatantly erroneous. Again, it is no longer one actually wrote, but what another may imagine it can potentially do that can earn one�s condemnation. Now one only has to put their two reviews side by side (the Passion review and the Gospel of John review) and only laugh. Where they DID issue warnings was over the potentially harmful film by Mel Gibson, where grave concern was over a verse that IS in our Scriptures. Where they did NOT issue warnings, but declared a �faithful version� of the Gospels was on the Gospel of John movie, which included material that was NOT in the Scriptures. Exactly, what is going on here? Mary Magdalen was NOT at the Last Supper per any of the Gospel traditions, including extra-canonical traditions, nor was she in the Garden of Gethsemane. But my theory, I think, best explains what is really going on here � and this is from my own indulging into biblical studies at a Catholic university: siding with the ADL is easier and aids in undoing much damage from the WWII era when many innocent Jews were killed while a Pope was asking for patience. Contradicting liberal biblical scholarship AND the woman ordination movement is a bit tougher in reality. The bishops may have many angry women to face back at the chancery. Mel�s traditionalism doesn�t help him either. It only confirms that his type can get the message across better. I remember also the rough time that Mother Angelica had getting her network going and how some bishops wanted to produce their own show. Her traditionalism was not politically correct.

//The Pope saw it, supposedly remarked, "It is as it was." (hardly an endorsement IMHO). Then the Vatican denies the comment. I don't see anyone here terming the Bishop of Rome's non-comments as "gutless".//

There is a difference between what the Pope might say and what his secretary�s said he didn�t say. We all know how one thing can be said and then taken back by the decasteries at the Vatican. Does the ill-fated attempt to rid of �mandatory� celibacy come to mind for the Ruthenians? �Yes� one minute; �No� the next. Nothing new here.

//This is only a movie, a form of entertainment! That we should be so zealous in inviting people to our respective Churches to observe and participate in the Real (not reel) Drama that takes place upon the Holy Tables each week. At the very minimum, they'd save $9.00.//

Unfortunately, the bishops did not see it as merely a form of entertainment, but warned us of the potential for anti-Semitism; hardly an endorsement. Maybe none of this would have blown out of proportion if the bishops were more discerning.

Actually Joe, the reviews of both movies touch on the potential of anti-semitism"

http://www.usccb.org/movies/p/thepassionofthechrist.htm

http://www.usccb.org/movies/g/thegospelofjohn.htm

Moreover the declaration "faithful version" does not appear in the review; the movie is declared to be a "[f]aithful word-for-word version" (and not a "faithful, word-for-word version" either). The review discusses this artistic choice at lenght, so there is no doubt about the criterion of fidelity here, being used.

Nevertheless, as I have said before, I think the reviewers were remiss in not calling attention to elements that go beyond the scripture in the films.

djs,

It would have been interesting to see what the USCCB would have done/said if only the Gospel of John movie was being shown. Its my belief that anything said about the two movies was really inspired by Mel's forthcoming film. They could really care less what the other movie was all about, including a Jesus that reminded them of a shampoo commercial.

Sorry for my paraphrase. Anytime the word "faithful" is used for something that wasn't ...

//Nevertheless, as I have said before, I think the reviewers were remiss in not calling attention to elements that go beyond the scripture in the films.//

Thank you. This was my point. Mel did used extra elements, but I don't think the Protestants and Evangelicals caught onto what they saw. Whereas the West used many non-canonical elements in their Passion traditions, the East uses many non-canonical elements in their Paschal traditions. Mel can be, I said, CAN BE justified in many of his extra elements since the Passion traditions were developed way before the New Testament was canonized, but including blatantly politically correct material is highly questionable. Please refer to my comments above. The bishops are not dealing with an historical event of the past (the Holocaust, man's inhumanity to man), but the present (the women ordination movement). What bishop would like to get entangled with this group? Paula Frederickson commented on how Mel's Passion film was akin to his version of Latin Catholicism (OK, not exactly in those words), but made no comment what version of Catholicism the Gospel of John film was trying to portray.

In the end ... politics.

Joe

Just found this on another forum & don't remember reading it @ ByzCath,

Australian Cardinal Pell & the Passion:

http://www.cathnews.com/news/402/57.php


Hope this one works!

Its probably at zenit.org also.


james

It looks like Australia has one fine Cardinal.

Dan Lauffer

Joe,

I would further stipulate that "faithful" was misleading at best.

First, if such an important aspect meaning hinges on the presence or absence of a comma - then the reviewer should have just composed a new sentence. In any case, it was argumentative to say that script was faithful in being word-for-word. The reviewer noted that "Jews" was rendered following one or another of the latest translations as "Jewish Authorities".

This fundamental issue of fidelilty or accuracy was at the heart of many concerns over Gibson's movie. Total accuracy being inherently impossible in going from a book to a movie. AS you note, details were filled in both. Concerns were raised in various quarters over such filling in. Such concerns are legitimate, IMO, lest the wrong impressions are drawn about the "fidelity" of these various interpolations. This is particulary important in portrayals that seem very accurate.

djs,

You make a good point. There is a difference between a film that is "faithful" and one that is only "faithful word-by-word." Mary Magdalen, who was at both the Last Supper and in the Garden of Gethsemane didn't say a word. So, the film can still be word-by-word faithful. Pretty slick wording, eh?

Joe

Very slick.

I am very quick to pick up on such rhetoric, having spent a childhood misdirecting my parents this way.

Enjoy success in your new work.

The "word-for-word" thing is not an attempt at praise but a statement of fact. The Gospel of John is word-for-word the Good News translation of the Bible, (actually a very poor paraphrase not really a translation) just as the Gospel of Matthew Movie was word-for-word the NIV translation (with the chapter and verse numbers ticking by at the bottom of the screen).

Fr. Deacon Lance

Looking at the issue of "word for word translation," can I remind everyone the EASTERN iconographic legacy? Yes, a painting can be good, a masterpiece, and close to the truth -- yet, being close does not make it -- legitimate. In fact, closer to truth is more likely to distort, because people will see it as close, and not understand where it went wrong.

This is why doing any artistic rendition of Christ's life requires SERIOUS thought and consideration, and not mocking people for "not accepting it is just a piece of art."

Dear Fr. Lance,

I missed it at first, but discovered the 'very slick' wording of the bishops. It WAS a faithful "word-for-word" thing, which allowed them to by-pass commentary on the Mary Magdalena issue - since she didn't SAY (read: words) anything in the film at the Last Supper or Garden scene. If they said it was just plain faithful, there would be a rebuttal.

Djs's right hook woke me up to that difference. :p

Slick. Very slick. Now, the bishops can go back to their chanceries in peace ...

Joe

Right Hook?