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

Dan,

I am aware of the context of the remark. I think that your complaint about the USF faculty has some merit. Your extending it to me (and perhaps to Iconophile; Don wasn't posting on that thread) was a leap of amazing proportions; I am still mystified by it.

I am intrigued about your idea of "objectivity", but don't get your point, entirely. So I hope you will expand on it.

ISTM that one alternative to this "objectivity" is a kind of partisanship that says: support arguments, no matter how flawed, if in the end they agree with one's own conclusions. This "outcome-based 'thinking'" I cannot support. (Do you credit students for arriving at "correct" answers, through a series of mistakes and flawed arguments?) Process, ISTM, is crucial, because it equips you with the tools required for exploring uncharted territory, where there are no road signs that tell you what is left and what is right. And for living in well travelled territory where there are confusing road signs. (I think of Byzantine Ascetic, and those who wandered off to ROAC.)

If this is what you see as the disease of "objectivity", then I've got it. If you assume that it leads to secularity, however, you are mistaken. Truth cannot contradict Truth, as JPII said, so there is nothing to fear, provided we maintain a healthy skepticism about our own capabilites for discernment. (In fact, those who reach "secularity" through "objectivity" are typically just making an error in process: point them to Goedel's theorem to guide them more safely into terra incognito).

Your fellow parishioner has the a nice line from the Akathist Hymn to the Virgin Mary on his blog:

Hail, O Reproof of foolish philosophers!

Good thinking process will inevitably lead here.

djs,

Thank you for your further post. It was your posting a link to the USCCB press release that convinced me. For the past year I have read numerous stories and seen lots of interviews which referenced how the bishops believed the movie to be anti-Semitic. Without such a specific reference on your part I would not have given any credibility to your claims. If you were to put forth the futility of accepting anything reported in the major media without personally vetting it I would agree with you.

I don�t know why Gibson didn�t set the record straight. My guess is that he didn�t know. I just re-read the USCCB February 25th review of the movie. I am rather disappointed with it. It sets the record straight that the bishops do not believe the movie to be anti-Semitic but it seems to be very careful not to speak too positively about the movie. I was especially disappointed with the part where the review suggests that the movie may have �muted Christ's teachings�. It is a very Western telling of the Stations of the Cross. I do not think it spends less time on the �Why?� of the Passion then the Stations of the Cross service as prayed in Latin Catholic Churches does. I find it rather odd that Evangelical Protestant Christians can acknowledge the artistic license and still give the movie their wholehearted support while the USCCB only provides a review that really neither blesses nor condemns the film.

I will agree that you are showing your age with your mention of the Washington Star! I believe that the Star stopped publishing over 20 years ago. I also agree that the Times should have checked with the USCCB to see if the reports last year from Zenit and the other news services claiming that the bishops had jumped on the anti-Semitic bandwagon regarding the movie should have been confirmed. Let�s face it, reporters across the news media are much lazier then the average Forum participant when it comes to verifying sources. Last June�s clarification did cite the Zenit story of May 30th but the stories for 2003 are not available at the Zenit website.

I disagree that Limbaugh�s words against the USCCB were an ad hominem. He and everyone else who relies on the news media to get the story correct still believe the original, erroneous reports. I think that charity would demand that one look at their case in light of the data that has been widely published. I�ll bet that if, in their full review of the movie published last week, the USCCB had made it quite clear that there was an error in reporting last year and that they had never officially commented on the movie, then Limbaugh would not have called them gutless. In light of the fact the USCCB has not actually led the Church in recent years and instead has pretty much simply reacted to whatever was the burning issue I think that Limbaugh�s comments are very valid opinion.

Admin

You are too kind. I confuse them under the same rubric that writers at the Boston Herald use to describe the Globe: TORIT (the other rag in town).

Actually, I found Neil's survey very interesting. I discovered that I am in the mode/median age bracket on the forum. So re-juvenating!

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your response to my questions. I appreciate your continuing courtesy. I have read the answers. They clarify some things but raise some issues.

Your first comments, in the main, appear to be about abortion. I think that we agree that the teaching of our bishops is that abortion is a grevious private and public moral evil. They constantly teach it. Our Churches are recognized even by some who do not belong to her for that stand.

Our bishops have consistently taught that it is immoral to cooperate in the procurement of abortion and other direct violations of Christian morality. It is not new teaching.

It is not moral for politicians and others to promote conditions conducive to abortion or other immoral behavior. Whether one agrees, that is known to be the teaching of our bishops.

Bishops have supported their teaching in public with public sanctions on individuals when they decided that this was appropriate. There have been numerous tales in the news about bishops who have forbidden speakers to talk at graduations or other occassions sponsored by Catholic institutions because of this. Some bishops have even publically forbidden one Catholic politician or public figure or another to receive communion until they repent. Some have excommunicated those who disagree with Church teachings.

Some have used their discretion for example and and have chosen not to address an individual public figure in public. They have directed that those Catholic politicians and public figures who support abortion should not approach to receive the Eucharist. I am not privy to other forms of correction that the bishops apply in private.

I don't understand how one can "note their failure to privately call them to account."

I simply assume that the vast majority of Catholic Bishops take their role as moral teacher seriously and do the teaching conscientiously. When they don't, there is no pass.

My point is that our bishops do respond and have responded regularly over the years, that I can remember, using a variety of tools based on their pastoral discretion.

I would like to suggest that our bishops are courageous in their moral teaching on issues that some would like them to leave alone. They had the effrontery to teach in recent years about the morals involved in economic behavior and, more recently, the immorality of premptive wars for example.

I posit that this characterization of our bishops is different from the one presented in some other posts in this thread.

I don't think that the bishops as a whole need a pass on the issue of teachin morality among us. Nor do I think that they, as a group should have their reputations besmirched by overgeneralizations.

In my estimation that is what has happened in your response. A bishop in a diocese makes what is a mistake at the very least or an immoral decision to extend insurance to partners of workers. Some bishops evidently have not met whatever standard has been set for their pastoral activities in the public forum by the media or some members of the faithful on the issue of abortion.

I do think that the individual issues that you raise are important. I just think that there is a an assumption unsurfaced in what you have said despite your caveat that the bishops cannot respond in every instance.

If I am correct, it is that whenever and always each bishop must use the public forum to raise issues of conscience with politicians and other public figures or no moral teaching has happened.

I don't agree. They are the pastors among us and have the right to exercise discretion as to how to pastor best. Are they required to issue a certain number of excommunications and personal interdicts before they have pastored the public figures in their flock properly?

Who decides when any bishop should go "public?" They do not have to meet my standards or yours. Given their public condemnation of abortion in the majority of cases they do not need a pass in my opinion.

I assume that they are honorable men and given their public record are doing what they need to do. When they do not we clamor and the Central Pastor around whom the Churches gather exercises his pastoral discretion and deals with it.

The media features prominently in this thread.

The meidia, in my opinion, including the Rush Limbaugh, is focused on sales and will cover whatever will elicit sales or commericals, etc. Their forte is not teaching the nuances of Catholic morality or the nuances of pastoral care. They cannot be expected to.

In the case of sexual abuse by priests, the newspapers of today served us well. The reports of victims and abuse helped the various elements of our Churches realize that there was a festering wound among us.

Yet their reports were sensational presenting our bishops in general, in my opinion, as uncaring beasts and not men who were struggling over time ineffectually and mistakenly with a horrible breach of trust that resulted in such horrible pain. The bishops were mistaken and some let horrible things happen. They have admitted it.

I am glad that you recognize that the bishops are dealing in a remarkably transparent manner given the ecclesial and cultural atmosphere of secrecy that was prevelant before now.

I don't think it's giving anyone a pass to recognize that as the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington said on television this morning, they did take action. They took it in the culture of their time when Catholics could not conceive of the monstrosity that was happening. It was a matter of sin.

When it became possible, they relied on the professional advice that cure was possible and that this or that man was cured and returned him to ministry. There was a financial reparation, if I understood, for victims and their families.

The bishops in those days lived and acted on what was the best practice of the time. It is obvious to us today with hindsight that it was not the best practice possible. Nor was it appropriate. I agree with that. The results prove that. The bishops accept that.

I don't want to address the issue of Rush and his comments to any great degree. I am simply fascinated that his words were accepted as the truth. I understand the need for care and rebuilding of the bonds between us and our bishops. I don't understand the ease with which Rush's comments and characterization of our bishops was simply accepted and built upon.

Let me suggest gently that the bishops are one group of leaders whom it is hard for any government to control. They have opposed premtive war. Isn't it possible that the "neutral" commentary you seem to ascribe to Rush could be a real case of smite the shephers and scatter the flock?

Why did Rush get a pass from Catholics who are
Church because they gather around their bishops?

In regard to your question and comments beginning with "HUH", I do believe that it behooves us to insist that the truth be in what is reported and what is charged.

I'd like to close by repeating:

"I don't think that I'm asking for any special treatment for Catholics, even Catholic bishops here. It's a matter of common fairness or so it appears to me.

Forgive me, it's late and I'm tired.

Perhaps the posters who believe that our bishops' behaviors are gutless and who agree that they are not doing a good job of speaking out know something about which I know nothing.

If that's so, I'd like to learn about it one thing at a time.

But, till then, the caricaturization of the collective reputation of the Bishops that appears to be underway here bothers me as a fellow human."

That was the issue that bothered me most."

I mean no offense, but it bothers me still.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dan,

That was no brush off, I sincerely meant you should ask your bishop. In re-reading my posts I didn't read where I inferred any bishop made an official comment about the movie. I do not know if any bishop made an official comment about the movie. I imagine if you wanted to find out you could check the website of any given diocese or check the on-line edition of the diocesan paper.

I disagree. It does not take a great deal of moral courage to issue a statement calling people to respect life or to quietly tell a politician he really ought not to cast votes that are in direct conflict with moral teaching. It would take a great deal of moral courage to quietly inform politicians who vote against abortion (for example) that they will be excommunicated if they continue to vote to support abortion on demand and then, once those politicians did not repent to go ahead and issue a public excommunication (or at least actually deny them Communion when they approach). There are a few bishops who have such courage but most are simply afraid. [Regarding the morality of preemptive wars it is very interesting to see some of the reports coming out of the Vatican showing that the press accounts of the Holy Father condemning the action were erroneous and that the Chaldean Catholic Bishop of Baghdad has now publicly thanked President for freeing the Iraqi people � but that is another thread.]

I�m sorry but the evidence does not back up your claim.

In the recent child abuse scandal the bishops did nothing but transfer priests from one parish to another until an outraged public forced them to act in accordance with Christian morality and remove the offenders.

In this issue regarding the movie we find Evangelical Protestant Christians telling people that even though Gibson�s movie isn�t perfect that everyone ought to see it (they are even renting whole theatres and passing out tickets to interested people to introduce them to Jesus Christ!). If you read the USCCB film review it is carefully nuanced not to offend anyone and comes nowhere near endorsing the movie (although a few individual bishops have praised it). Why aren�t� the bishops endorsing this movie? Because they are afraid of criticism.

How many bishops do you know who have publicly stated that Catholic politicians who vote against the right to life will be excommunicated and have then followed up by actually excommunicating someone? Would it have not spoken volumes if the Archbishop of San Francisco went to jail instead of paying benefits to the homosexual partners of archdiocesan employees? Why are not the bishops engaging in civil disobedience like they did during the civil rights era? I am not insisting on a quota but even a dozen bishops who each did something like this would be nice. I think it is rather gutless of the USCCB not to have a formal policy on this. We are talking about people who claim they are followers of Jesus Christ who, by their votes, are actively assisting in the murder of preborn humans!

If the news media had not hounded the bishops into taking action nothing would have been done. Any bishop who transfers a priest who is guilty of child sexual abuse is an uncaring beast and a monster that needs to be removed from office. Yes, there are some bishops who are calling for a real change in how the Church selects and prepares men for the priesthood I do not think that anyone seriously believes that the current reports are much more than damage control PR.

I have not suggested that the government control the bishops. I have suggested that the bishops stop bowing to the altar of public opinion and speak openly and forcefully against the evils in our society. I do not see it at all possible that this is an issue of smiting the shepherds and scattering the flock. If one looks at the abuse issue it is clearly a case of the flock rising up to call the shepherds to account. One does not gather around and support bishops who are wrong. One prays for them and urges them to action.

Over half of the priests accused of child abuse have one, and only one complaint against them. This hard fact - that flies in the face of the claims of irreformability - gives me pause.

Is a factor of 12 increase in risk (4/100 versus 1/2) really the difference between a good shepherd and an uncaring beast and monster?

Maybe a new thread on this?

I think that the work of the Catholic league is excellent in calling for some balance on the abuse issue. The news reporting has had no baseline by which to assess whether these numbers are huge or tiny compared to others that have a lot of contact with children. The Catholic league provides some numbers on high school teachers that are shocking.

I am grateful, actuallly, to anyone in the media who has helped us weed out abuse. At the same time I suspect that media indifference to broader perspectives is calculated on the part of both liberal media elites - who would like those gutless bishops to stop harping on abortion and other culture-of-death issues - and conservative media elites - who would like those gutless bishops to stop with their anti-war and other socially progressive causes.

Strictly conjecture on my part. But how else to explain the utter lack of background and perspective? I am interested in helping the church, and uninterested in advancing the hidden agendas of its opponents.

This conclusion is inconsistent with the report. Things were being done already 20 years ago and with great effect in reducing incidents of abuse.

It is easier and gutless to simply ride the bandwagon warning about the POTENTIAL anti-Semitism in Mel Gibson's movie. Forget actual content.

But to take the Gospel of John movie to task is a bigger battle for the gutless bishops. It would mean actually taking a stand on the push to include women at the altar because Mary Magdalen was at the Last Supper and in the Garden of Gethsemane. Those who aided in the movie are part of that movement. Many nuns and women who support it are administrators and employees in Catholic chanceries.

The hype from the USCCB on the Passion movie is nowhere proportional to the lack of commentary on the supposedly "faithful" version of the Gospel of John movie.

Look at the fine kettle of fish they got themselves into now. Gutless wonders.

Joe,

Watch out. You're next for the Forum crucifixion.

Dan L

BTW While I've not seen this apparent wrong headed and perhaps worse movie I do wish our bishops would show some leadership and more courage. And I did not use the "g" word.

What "hype" from the USCCB?

Talk about PC, and I don't mean Political Correctness!

One always forgives those who repent and reform. Forgiveness does not mean allowing someone who has committed a heinous immorality access to more innocent children. I do believe that any bishop who allows a known abuser � even a repentant one � to remain in a position with access to children is indeed an uncaring beast and a monster. This is doubly true for the bishops who repeatedly transferred serial abusers from parish to parish whoever trouble erupted.

I do recognize that the incidence of child sexual abuse among Catholic clergy is lower than that of the society in general (and I have posted this in several previous discussions).

I also acknowledge that in some dioceses positive action was taken already 20 years ago (and I have also posted this in previous discussions).

The problem is that comprehensive action was not universally taken 20 years ago or even now. This report is merely an analysis of what has happened. The procedures that have been put in place are not comprehensive enough. There also needs to be a review of all seminaries in the country to ensure that programs are in place to weed out people who already have problems in these areas. Nothing can guarantee that such heinous crimes will never be committed again (they will) but much more can be done from a proactive, preventive perspective. What has been done so far is almost all reactive in nature.

Yes, I agree that a new thread is in order for those wishing to discuss this new issue.

Call me 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 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".

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.

To paraphrase Our Lord, we have the Church and the Holy Mysteries, if we don't share this work of Jesus Christ, is someone really going to be convinced by a movie?

I hope nobody minds some rambling thoughts.
I think the desire by some for endorsement of the movie by the bishops comes from a perception that if they don't the church will have missed a great opportunity for evangelization. They notice the excitement many non-Catholic religious leaders feel for the movie and are disappointed that the excitement seems not to be shared by our own leaders as far as they can tell.

Even when so many remark on how 'Catholic' the movie is, with all the Eucharistic and Marian imagery and parralels. I think a lot of people will have questions and now is a moment to have them answered.I've noticed these feelings on other websites too, not just this website.

I think we should do a better job at inviting people to Mass/Divine Liturgy and to all the sacraments but you have to reach people where they are sometimes. Maybe a film isn't such a bad way to do that. I don't think the movie is going to convince anybody (well, actually I hope it does ) but I think it at least has the potential to plant seeds in peoples lives and that's a good thing. At least its a start. Besides, its not just a movie, its a work of art and art is worth reflecting and taking seriously.

Father Deacon,

"To paraphrase Our Lord, we have the Church and the Holy Mysteries, if we don't share this work of Jesus Christ, is someone really going to be convinced by a movie?"

Quite so, but doesn't evangelism come in many flavors? A kindness here. A word there. A movie on this day. A visit on the other. Then attendance in His presence. Then training. Then the Holy Mysteries. Can one move from having no faith to receiving the Holy Mysteries in one step? Surely if a person is a cradle Catholic the path is less circuitous. Perhaps it is compassion on the part of those who were raised in the Church, who had/have the benefits of a devout family and a devout environment, who have participated in all of the glories of the Church from day #1 to allow for the rest of us a chance to participate as well.

Surely, it isn't mandatory that every Catholic watch this movie. Surely, it isn't mandatory that everyone who watches it have the same response to it. But just as surely, it behooves the faithful to receive the knowledge of the grace of God in every way they can. Surely, it behooves the faithful Catholic to avoid criticizing those who find God's grace through a movie. Surely, it behooves the faithful Catholic to encourage every means possible that is legitimate to share the message of salvation with the entire world.

Not everyone has easy access to the Mysteries. I was a United Methodist pastor for 27 years. I was as close to the Mysteries through those years as I knew to be. I had much of the theology in order but still did not participate in the Mysteries. I attended Divine Liturgy for a year before I was chrismated and participated in the Holy Mysteries. Did I do something wrong?

Dan L

Manuel,

I agree completely. It is very odd to me that with all of the calls for evangelism I've read on this board so few can see the potential for it in so many things and events around us.

Administrator,

I think I'm ready to respond to the request you made of me nearly a year ago. Let's talk about it through pm.

Dan L