www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall And Some People Are Angry About The Passion !

No other religion in America is subjected to these kinds of blasphemous attacks, yet when Mel Gibson makes a movie that is faithful to the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of our Saviour, he is accused in some sectors of stirring up hatred.

Here's the repulsive story. http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/03/tv.abc.jesus.ap/index.html

Lawrence,

I have heard mixed reports about the movie. There are indications that Mel actually added to it, making a scene (which has been cut but will probably be on the DVD) which had the Jews making the cross -- in the temple!

Mel Gibson, we must remember, is not a faithful witness of the Catholic faith, and has some rather extreme views. His previous "historical" movies have shown his tendency to add his bias to history, distorting the history itself.

I think we would do better to actually wait and see -- not praise the movie nor curse it, until it is actually out. I do have this "intuition" that his extreme views will be seen in the film, but that is from my experience with the Gibson family in general.

Henry

The temple scene you're speaking of, came from a vision of St Catherine Emmerich. To my knowledge, the movie has nothing in it that runs contrary to either to Scripture or Sacred Tradition. My point however, was that ABC TV thinks that it's ok to make blasphemous suggestions about our Saviour on prime time, while not daring to give similar treatment to any other religion.

Slava Isusu Christu!

And what are these "extreme views"? Could you be confusing Mel's own views, which he keeps close to his own, with his father's, who would do well to keep his own counsel? As far as I know, Mel Gibson may be a little misguided in his views on Vatican II, but he's certainly no "extremist". He's definitely no sedevacantist.

In Christ,
mikey.

Mike,

Well, I will provide one example of words Mel Gibson publically gave and was widely reported upon in the media:

"MEL GIBSON LAUNCHES SCATHING ATTACK on the Vatican" was the headline in The Times of London on September 13. Excerpts from the story: "Mel Gibson, a Roman Catholic who is to play Christ in a new film, has attacked the Vatican, saying that he does not believe in the Church as an institution. The actor, who says that he is an 'old fashioned Catholic' who rigorously supports the Latin Mass, is shooting Passion in Rome and in the southern Italian town of Matera. He says that he is happy that his only daughter has decided to become a nun.
---

Now the whole Times article is available on their website. But notice, he attacked the Church "as institution" and makes a language as more important than the liturgy itself (it has to be in Latin? really? tell our forefathers that!)

Mel Gibson has made several criticisms in the manner that his father has. There are more ways than being Sede -- like thinking one can be "independent" Catholic without the "institution."

Mel Gibson, a Roman Catholic who is to play Christ in a new film, has attacked the Vatican...

Slava Isusu Christu!

Wow. I thought he was just directing the film.

Unfortunately, I can't read the Times article as you must have a username and password to read archived material. Regardless, if they can't get the fact that Mel Gibson is not playing the lead role in the film right, I wouldn't put much credence into what ever else they have to say.

Regardless, I wouldn't call his views "extreme". There's nothing more extreme about his views than those in the infamous "AmChurch" movement (apologies to those who are offended by the A-word). Misguided, perhaps, but not extreme.

In Christ,
mikey.

So why aren't the Italians protesting the film? Presumably it portrays Romans actually doing the crucifying. Isn't this anti-Italianism rearing its ugly head?

Daniel,

In history, the idea was the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ -- they were the God-killers. The Roman's (under Pilate) washed away their guilt (following Scripture), while the Jews say "may his blood be upon us" indicates their taking on the full guilt.

This was used to justify all kinds of cruelty and persecution against the Jews. This is not to say that Catholics, all the time, did so; in fact, the so-called "slums" in Rome were at one time created to help protect the Jews from such sentiments. But, the problem is the history of antisemitism and how it has put all the blame on the Jews, and uses it to justify hate against the Jews. The Church (in Vatican II) has specifically criticized such a viewpoint, and works to rectify such sentiments. However, many people have not gotten this message yet, and adding scenes like the cross being built in the temple, is not only ludicrous it also helps re-establish this hostility.

I wonder if the tree huggers won't complain about that scene with the snake!

I wanted more information on this issue, about Mel Gibson, so I went looking for stuff on the 'net.

I found this article which doesn't come out and say the Mel is not catholic, it just lists some questionable things and then ends with the following sentence, "So where does that leave Gibson? �Well, I hope he�s Catholic," Johnson says. "We�d love to have him.�"

Here is a link to the article.

But Is Mel Gibson Catholic? [pangaeus.com]


David, the Byzantine Catholic

What about free speech rights and the right to artistic expression and all that ?
Don't forget The Last Temptation of Christ, The Priest, the latest TV exploration of "Christ had a Wife" statues of Mary made out of manure or whatever.
Where is the ACLU now? Shouldn't they be speaking up in defense of Mel Gibson and his right to make whatever type movie he wants?
Funny how it never seems to work in favor of Christianity!

Sam

He says that he is happy that his only daughter has decided to become a nun......

His daughter is becoming a Carmalite nun. I don't think she is too far off, if she is entering that order.

Dear Friends,

Well, I actually met Mel Gibson some weeks back, quite by accident.

He was deep in prayer, rosary in hand.

We didn't talk much, there were others walking around but didn't seem to recognize him.

In any event, the vision of the Ven. Catherine Emmerich should be taken with a grain of salt (she is not canonized to my knowledge).

She also, in her "Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary" said that an "icon" of the Immaculate Conception was produced and taken to the "Greeks" who, although they first opposed it, later accepted it as being in keeping with ancient Church tradition . . .

Personal visions, while they can be edifying, can hardly pass as historical truth, unless they can be independently verified.

The cross was a pagan symbol of Roman domination to the Jews.

There is no way they could have fashioned the cross of Christ in the Temple. The Jews had problems with Alexander the Great placing his own statue on the Temple Mount outside the Temple - and Alexander, great as he was, exempted them from that rule. This is why "Alexander" is a non-Jewish name that can be, nevertheless, given to Jewish children to this day.

Mel Gibson's own past is the Roman Catholicism that emphasized visions and revealed devotions of pious nuns locked up in monasteries all their lives. His is the old Catholicism that preferred paraliturgical prayer and private devotions over the Divine Liturgy, the Daily Office, the prayer of the Church, and the Psalter. This is the old Catholicism that prayed for the conversion of the Jews on Good Friday and the like.

Mel Gibson, and the SSPX-mentality that he embodies, relates more to emotionalism and to "inner light piety" that truly does make him and them fall prey to what the Fathers of the East call "prelest."

The emphasis on the Passion of Christ in his movie, on the actual torture of Christ is very old medieval Catholic and has nothing to say to Eastern Christians who glory in both Christ's Passion and Resurrection.

We celebrate the best possible "movie" of the Passion of Christ each year during Holy Week and Pascha.

Nothing can improve on that, on the liturgical sense of balance between passion and glory that our Lord experienced.

If we wish to witness to Christ, let us do so by reflecting Him in our lives via the energy of Grace that we receive from the liturgical life of the Church.

Mr. Gibson is no representative of the Catholic Church, even though one of his pastoral advisors was formerly the pastor of St Margaret's Church at Midland, Ontario (who was with him at the time I mentioned).

I see the Passion of Christ daily in the liturgical prayer of the Church, the Divine Liturgy and in the middle of my chest.

Keep all of Hollywood.

Alex

With sincere apologies to all who posted in this thread, I unfortunately think that this confirms my belief that even Christians will get caught up in arguments over whether Mel Gibson is really Catholic or not,and what Catherine Emmerich saw in her visions, instead of voicing their outrage at ABC TV for their blasphemous assertions about our Saviour last Monday evening during prime time. Sadly, I think (and I certainly include myself) we're becoming desensitized to blasphemy and immorality.

I just can't get too excited over a movie or program...if it offends you, don't watch. It is only entertainment after all. If we are really concerned about how the faith is expressed in the public sector, we need to focus on "real" issues that make the Church look bad. It serves the Church much more to correct real abuses, rather than wasting energy protesting what TV stations are showing. I recently heard some news that was a step in this direction. I was told this week that the diocesan religious community where I and several others have been sexually abused over the years has been disbanded and the superior/founder/chief abuser was told that he would not be allowed to regroup in any other diocese. Legal charges against him are in the works as well. Now that is doing something to improve the reputation of the Church! Finally!!! Don

Don

As you say - at last !! And well overdue.

Now that is a good bit of news

Anhelyna

Dear Lawrence,

With all due respect, one can see blasphemy on the television every day.

One may see it in the sexual immorality promoted on most shows, including "reality TV."

I've written to the station you mention to protest their blasphemy - did you?

Gibson can and should be held to account for the messages he conveys in this and all his films.

He is sending a message. To say that it is the same as the Gospel message is to give him far too much credit, as a film-maker and as someone professing to be more Catholic than the Catholic Church.

Alex

Alex

I've been critical of things I've heard about Mr Gibson in the past, and I in no way consider his movie to be sacred. If it contains errors, he should of course be taken to task. What amazes me though, is how this movie can cause such a furor, while the ABC programe "Jesus, Mary and DaVinci" can barely raise any noticeable opposition. And yes, I e-mailed ABC TV in protest.

Dear Lawrence,

May God richly reward you, His servant, with the same reward He gave to him who defended Him at Calvary: You shall be with Me in paradise!

Alex

Hey Alex-
What are you doing up so late? I notice that most of your postings [and the bulk of other posters] do their mischief during the day. I assume that you all are :
a] unemployed
b]students
c]night workers
d]retired
I won't entertain the thought that you are supposed to be working and are in fact goofing off on company time...as a blue collar worker this would offend my work ethic and further, scandalize me.
Lest I be misunderstood I will with some distaste resort to using one of these: :p

Alex

Thanks for your very kind words of comfort and encouragement. We shall all one day be in Paradise, if we perservere to the end.

The force that gathers "public" outrage over these things, talk radio, was focused on killing CBS' Reagan movie.

Talk radio can take on one task at a time.

The fact is that the ABC documentary showed there was no proof at all for the issues raised in this novel, and, in many ways, reinforced traditional views.


--Tim Cuprisin

Slava Isusu Kristu,

I agree with Tim. I rarely read fiction anyway.

Dmitri

Dear Daniel,

Yes, it is always a treat to speak with you . . .

I am a)between jobs b)an eternal student c)a night-worker and d)just plain tired.

I write for a living and dart in and out of here to actually help keep my focus on what I am writing.

Whatever gets you through the night . . .

Alex

Dear Tim,

But if more Christians went after ABC and taught them their "ABC's" with respect to Christianity, they just might behave.

Christians can be complacent at times.

I know that's hard to believe - accept it on faith.

Alex

Tim

You're quite right, I tuned into a Christian talk radio station several times this week, and in all honesty, there were more people angry about the Reagan movie.

And it's all about a miniseries NONE of the critics had seen.

It's the same with Mel Gibson's movie, which isn't even finished yet. Some selected groups have seen a current edit of the unfinished film.

The difference is that Mel Gibson's movie isn't bound for network TV... ever. It's always been bound for limited theatrical release.

All the hoo-hah over it has only served to increase interest in a movie a tiny tiny tiny percentage of people will ever see.

Let people scream about it. It's a good thing. It's called freedom.

---Tim Cuprisin

We should invite him to visit this forum!

Is it me or the avatars are just gettin' bigger

Yes, well as I have explained elsewhere, it is an accident due to my technological ineptness; I have asked for suggestions about how to shrink it and no one has offered any...it does lend a certain air of majesty and authority to my posts, don't you think?