Spirited discusssion of Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ, is increasing in the blogosphere. The loudest and most uncompromising voices tend to be those of those on the Right, who, while not necessarily members of the reactionary arm of Catholicism, are sympathetic to its embrace of "traditional values." Another type of defender hails from the 'it is just a movie' school of thought. The following are typical are of the comments I've read by them. In any case, while I understand people being a little concerned about Catholic attitudes when it comes to Jews, I think you should have a little, er, faith. No one's walking out of this movie a Jew-hater who wasn't already a Jew-hater walking in. I wouldn't worry unduly, then, about anger and revenge: At the very least, it's hard for me to imagine sitting through two hours of seeing a guy flayed alive and nailed to a piece of wood, and then coming out of theater like, "You know what I could really go for right now? More violence." Dear "ALL" I have yet to see this film, but I have read masses upon masses of reviews, insults, praise about it, and one thing has come to mind. You cannot blame a film for enciting jew hating maniacs, you either are one or you are not. I find it a total insult to any human being on this planet to suggest a film can be responsible for hatred of the jews or any other belief system. I myself will go to see the film on it's release in Britain and no matter what I may think of it I WILL NOT come away with the feeling that somehow the jewish people are responsible for jesus death, this is probably because I have my own beliefs in spiritual matters and no one will change that, as I am sure most people on this planet who has any sanity will not be turned into pyschopathic religious haters. So my message being, all you subjective bigots out there "GET A LIFE ITS ONLY A FILM", if we all had this reaction to the horrors that actually do go on in this world we could eradicate it over night. I do not expect anti-Jewish riots in Pasadena and Des Moines as a result of The Passion, but I think the film could be harmful. The reason is: Art can reflect and exacerbate preexisting social problems in a society.
NC
Sophie
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - debbie
Mac,
Have you seen the movie?
I have and there was nothing new in the movie that wasn't already in the New Testament (in regards to why Jesus gave his life). I just don't understand the anti-Semitec charges. I don't care what Gibson's father believes....the movie follows the Gospels. At no time in the movie does it portray 'Jews' as the reason for Christ's crucifixion. It clearly shows that Christ willingly gave his life for us, and he continued to pray for forgivness for the people.
This movie was very inspiring to me personally, it gave me a deep sense of love, hope and forgivenss. Here was our Lord, willingly giving his life up in the most horrific way so that we all could be forgiven. How much love does that take?
The loudest criticism has come from people that have not seen the movie and state that they have no intention of seeing the movie. How can you criticize something that you haven't seen?
2 - shaun
"At no time in the movie does it portray 'Jews' as the reason for Christ's crucifixion." uuhhh, did you see the same movie i did? They did portatray the jews as the instegator of jesus' crucifiction. whether jesus did it willingly or not he did not saw whip me and stick me to a stake, that was the jews. The portrial, i feel, is an accurate on of the jews
3 - debbie
""At no time in the movie does it portray 'Jews' as the reason for Christ's crucifixion." uuhhh, did you see the same movie i did?"
Yes, I did...I saw Christ tell his diciples that he was willingly giving his life for them, I saw Christ heal the ear of one of the Roman guards that came to arrest him, I saw Christ praying for His Father to forgive them because they didn't know what they were doing.
I also saw in that the movie portrayed demons going into the high priests and the crowd making them act that way. It was all fortold in the Scriptures, Jesus knew that this was why he was born. So, taking those points into consideration I didn't see the 'Jews' as the reason for the crucifixion. I saw all of humanity as the reason for the crucifixion.
4 - shaun
"I also saw in that the movie portrayed demons going into the high priests and the crowd making them act that way." again, same movie? I don't know where you are getting your info from, but that's is wrong. the demons never entered anyone. The only demons in the movie were there divil, the demons harrasing judas, and the jews
5 - Eric Olsen
Shaun, why don't you find something a little more useful to do with your time than spouting your poorly spelled, logically vacant, mentally warped, morally repugnant, and just plain boring anti-Semitism? It's really old and since you haven't the slightest objective substantiation for your foolish hate, there isn't even anything to be learned from it.
6 - shaun
oohh sweet eric, i wish i ahd time to gather sources for my argument, but i am doing these posts at work in my free time not leaving much time to do that. you are pretty hot tempered about this topic, sorry. don't mean to piss you off so much. If putting me down makes you feel better go for it. I am stating what i know and feel.
7 - Eric Olsen
The exact point I am making is that you don't "know" anything about it, and all you "feel" is baseless hate.
8 - Dawn
Shaun,
If you have enough time to leave a comment, could you also find the time to spell at least half of it correctly?
You are a pathetic dipshit, you're so stupid in fact, that I am wondering if you are just teasing us.
9 - Mark Saleski
i dunno...the email is tucker69...that's so kewl & klever!
;-)
10 - shaun
ok you guys. Fuck you all!! ya don't know shit about me, and you are right i don't thake this site or any of you sorry motherfucker seriously. Ya wanna talk shit and call me stupid, good for you. You all can huddle in front of your computers and blab shit at me.
ya sit on a computer all day bitch, it is funny, i posted a few comments and ya'll take it upon yourselves to be the jew defenders. great.
11 - Eric Olsen
"Jew Defenders" - I like that, maybe a TV show in the works.
12 - NC
You made these points in another thread, Mac, so I'll repeat the point I made to you there in response: So what? I agree that art can reflect/exacerbate social problems; I also agree that the traditionalist Catholic movement, like any movement, seeks to grow. So what? What exactly are you getting at, aside from the fact that you obviously wish "The Passion" hadn't been made? Should we not go see it, lest it trigger some kind of long-dormant Jew-killing impulse lurking deep inside our Christian consciousness? Should we not be allowed to see it? I keep waiting for the "therefore" in your comments about this.
I also don't grasp what Mel Gibson's intentions have to do with my enjoyment of his film. Lots of filmmakers intend a lot of things with their films that I, for one reason or another, don't buy into. But in any event, we'll never quite know what Mel intended for the simple reason that we can't get in his head. So why worry about it? In fact, let me ask you this: What did Spike Lee intend when he made "Malcolm X" (a film which, incidentally, this purveyor of "traditional values" thought was fabulous)? Was he going for black pride? Was he going for something more general, i.e., the story of a free-thinker who fought against prejudice? Or was he trying to incite the black community to take up arms against The Man? I'm not sure, and--here's the important point--I don't care. I enjoyed the movie on my own terms, just like anyone enjoys any movie, and I wouldn't knock it just because it may have "reflect[ed] and exacerbate[d] preexisting social problems in a society." That's what good art does. That's life.
13 - Eric Olsen
So NC, did you like The Passion?
14 - NC
Did you? Did Mac?
15 - Mac Diva
There is not a 'therefore' because I do not believe in censorship 99 percent of the time, NC. However, I do believe people should be aware of what the potential harm of supporting something they see as innocuous, but has deeper implications can be. On Mac-a-ro-nies today, I've borrowed comments about "The Passion" from another blog, a conservative one, incidentally. They reflect what some people see in the movie -- confirmation of bigoted beliefs. I haven't posted that entry to Blogcritics, but you can see it here. I believe Shaun is also proving the point I'm trying to make, over and over again.
I took your and Sophie's remarks and used them for a blog item because most of what we're seeing in the blogosphere focuses on the first type of defender I've described above. But, I think believing 'it is just a movie' can also be dangerous.
I got into blogging as a result of sending material I have collected over the years about the neo-Confederate movement to the most prominent liberal bloggers. It was used during the Trent Lott debacle. One thing I've learned by observing those people is that they use the innocuous to attract adherents. Vague appeals to their 'heritage.' The claim that 'you should be able to wear anything you want to school or work.' Assertions that 'things were just fine in the South before the 1960s.' All very innocuous sounding, but it leads to a hateful result. In fact, there are actually persons making a living by playing the easily led for fools.
I am getting a 'see the Passion' postcard or two every day. They are lovely, full color oversize cards sent by area Roman Catholic Churches. I keep wanting to write 'send the money you are wasting on these cards to a victim of one of your pedophile priests' on them and send them back. This episode has made me question the priorities of your church, NC. Maybe you should, too.
16 - Dawn
I guess you could call me a "Jew defender", if there is a need for one, then call me. I am always willing to defend anyone being mistreated based on superficial reasons like color, religion,ethnic origin etc.
The only thing I won't defend is ignorance.
Now, as for the Church's priorities. I agree that the Catholic Church has made some major and egregious offenses upon mankind, the most recent abuses most duly noted, but I know plenty of truly good and caring Catholics and have met some inspirational priests in my life.
My issues with "the Passion" are mainly with Mel Gibson's interpretation of those events and some potential fudging of religious "facts". If he has a anti-Semitic bent based on that fudging, that is solely on him, not the Catholic Church as a group.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't REALLY judge is accurately - I may wait til it comes out on cable and aviod giving Mel my money.
My question to Mac and Eric is this: is it equally wrong to bash Catholics/Catholicism as it is to bash Jews/Judism?
I am not implying that you are, I am just wondering if it's an equal offense.
A
17 - Eric Olsen
Any bashing based upon "who" and not "what" is equally wrong.
No, I haven't seen the movie and it wasn't a trick question. I am just curious.
I have theological differences of opinions with Catholics, but I certainly have bigger theological differences with Jews and any other non-Christians. And I have real problems with the structure of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy, and obviously the pedophilia issue. I am pleased to hear about the changes that have been implemented since the '60s, but I have also had personal, very specific experiences that show me the changes have not made it out to the hinterlands yet. I am afraid that a fair number of Luther's complaints still have at least lingering validity 500 years later, and tacit or otherwise Vatican complicity in the Holocaust was only 60 years ago.
If this current crisis leads to real change in the structure and hierarchy of the Church then it will become worthy of its members.
And Jews aren't perfect either, nor are Lutherans, Jains or animists.
18 - Mac Diva
I don't believe I am bashing the Catholic Church by criticizing "The Passion." The controversies around the movie reveal fractures within the Church. The people most eager to promote it, the traditionalist movement, have scorned mainstream Catholicism for decades. (In fact, Hutton Gibson went so far as is to write a book titled, Is the Pope Catholic? maligning post Vatican II Catholicism.) However, with an asleep at the wheel Pope in Rome, the influence of that branch of Catholicism is growing. We may be seeing it reflected in not getting statements supportive of Vatican II in regard to the Christ's death out of Rome during this time. The Pope's secretary, a member of Opus Dei, seems to be the source of the claim the Pope had recommended the movie, though he backtracked later. I doubt he will prod the Pope in regard to clarifying what the Church supposedly believes about the responsibility for Christ's death.
My overall take on Catholocism is that there are and have been Catholics who fought for social justice, as I've said on other threads. However, conservatism has too often dominated the RCC. I'm also turned off by its emphasis on emotion and spectacle instead of actually getting worthwhile things that alleviate real world suffering done. If I were looking to become religious, the RCC is not where I would look.
The strongest Catholic bashers I've known are ex-Catholics. I don't believe I am qualified to give them a hand.
19 - Doug
Shaun, what are you doing back? No more anti-semitic quotes from Ben Franklin? Gee, maybe you should make some up for George Washington. I wouldn't call myself a 'jew defender', I think I'm more of a 'bitch slapper of stupid people'. Every comment you post just shows more of your ignorance, you can't even spell properly. If you are accessing this site from work I hope your employer finds out and you get fired. Do yourself a favor and go back to browsing through your anti-semite web sites where every one can tell you what a great person you are (you aren't BTW, but that's just my opinion). I just want you to know that I forgive your ignorance...and your bad spelling. However, just because I forgive you doesn't mean I want you to keep posting your ignorance...so please, just stop typing.
20 - Dawn
Eric and Mac - thank you, those were thoughtful and reasonable responses.
And everyone knows how thoughtful and reasonable I am :)
Mac - I also agree with you about the emotion and spectacle aspect of RCC - with so much money devoted by caring members of the church it would sure be nice to see that money given to, say poor Haitians seeking relief from poverty and hunger, than having it turned around and given back to victims as reparations because of abuse.
21 - Mac Diva
In regard to the new television program, "Jew Defenders," I envision Camryn Manheim (litigator), Lisa Bonet (infiltrator) and Leonard Nimoy (senior partner and philosopher) in the title role. Perhaps Britney Spears can appear in the opening two-parter.
22 - NC
I guess I found those comments a little less reasonable than Dawn did. To begin with, I'm not sure quite what to make of this:
Hopefully. Otherwise the hundreds of millions of people who prefer Catholicism to Lutheranism would be shit out of luck, wouldn't they? You almost sound disappointed, Eric, as though the Church should be faulted for not having "seen the light" by this point. Of course that's your right as a Protestant, but, at least among the Catholics I know, there's no feeling that we're waiting around for Lutherans to come back into the fold and, gee, what a shame that they haven't done so 500 years later, huh? Honestly, with every new "Passion" post here at BC, my sense that you think Catholicism is something either to be held in contempt or otherwise condescended to becomes more and more pronounced--which is ironic, since it's the Catholic Church that's so often criticized for not respecting beliefs that are different from its own. Go figure.
Mac, you said
See what I mean about condescension? Let me ask you something, Mac: What does this have to do with the traditional, reactionary, Mel-Gibson-brand Catholicism you're so worried about? Are the churches that are sending you these cards affiliated with Opus Dei? If not, why bring it up? It's non sequiturs like this that make me wonder what's really motivating people's feelings in this debate. I hear the same complaint a lot from Jews who find themselves in debates about Israel. The discussion starts with a discrete topic, like the separation fence, and before too long their opponent is complaining about Jewish "influence" in America. The fact that there's no clear connection between the two subjects except that both involve Jews makes one wonder whether it isn't good old fashioned anti-Semitism that's behind the complaining party's objections.
Which, incidentally, is also why Eric's "Does the violent, Catholic view of the Passion cause priests to fuck children?" comment the other day pissed me off so royally. Eric actually admitted at the time that he saw no clear connection between the two, although he did gamely try to throw something together later when I pressed him on it in this thread. Needless to say, I don't find his theory any more persuasive than I would a theory that purported to link the Jewish practice of circumcision to Jews' guilt over their role in the death of Christ. (Since, you know, there's a certain amount of "physicality" to both). But it's not the fact that I find his theory specious that makes it objectionable to me; it's the fact that he didn't think it was particularly sound either and yet he introduced it into the debate anyway. Why? As in the example of the separation fence and Jewish "influence," I have to wonder if it wasn't because the pedophilia scandal provides a convenient brush with which to tar all things Catholic. And who would want to do a thing like that--except, you know, someone who's anti-Catholic?
By the way, Mac, how did you manage to deduce what the Catholic Church's priorities are from the fact that you received a few postcards from the local parish? The worst scandal in its 2,000 years of existence, legal liability to the tune of half a billion dollars and climbing, the shaken faith of millions upon millions of worshippers and, worst of all, thousands of children's lives ruined, but you think that the thirty cents it cost to mail that postcard proves that what the Pope is really worried about is people seeing Mel Gibson's movie. Super.
I'm gonna go get some coffee now. Hopefully by the time I get back Eric will have a theory about how the Catholic view of the Passion maybe, possibly, kinda sorta caused the Church's complicity in Nazi war crimes. Because, hey--violence!
23 - debbie
All I can tell you is what I felt as I watched the movie and it wasn't anti-Semitism, and it wasn't hate.
I meant everything that I said in my previous posts. People will see whatever is in their heart, in the movie.
Eric, did you really say that?????
24 - Mac Diva
Wow, are you off the mark, NC. I am very much opposed to Israel's refusal to share a certain piece of real estate with a group of human beings who have just as valid a claim to it as Israeli Jews do -- Palestinians. So are many American Jews. My ex refused to visit Israel as long as reactionaries dominate the government there. Nor would he contribute to conservative Jewish charities. I am also wary of the influence of some Jews on American domestic and foreign policy, as you would know if you had looked at Hal's 'neo-cons' thread. But, I don't credit their wrongheadedness to them being Jewish -- that is when one becomes anti-Semitic. Those Jews, a minority, BTW, aren't "bad people," they are people with bad ideas that I don't want to see in power any more than I want to see Christians or atheists with bad ideas in power.
In regard to Opus Dei, individuals join, not churches. Since OD has its own hierarchy, including a bishop, it does not need approval from diocesian officials for anything it does. It is possible for OD members to dominate a given church or diocese, of course. But, an individual priest, from say St. Mark's, could be behind the cards from there. I suspect that mainstream priests are going along with the fervor around "The Passion" because it may draw people and money to their churches. Or, like some people here, they may regard the flip side of the equation as innocuous.
25 - NC
debbie--Eric did not use those words. Here's what he said (from this thread):
I apologize for the confusion. I used the quotation marks as a way of showing that Eric's view was not my own, on the assumption that people would recognize from the strong language and sarcasm that it wasn't actually a direct quote. Anyway, hope this sets the record straight. It was his point but they were my words.