| Author | Message | ||
     finnegan Citizen Username: Finnegan Post Number: 71 Registered: 6-2001 |
Redsox, well, yes, Ian Paisley has an honorary doctorate in divinity from Bob Jones U. Paisley and the Bob Joneses (Sr., Jr., and Bob Jones "III")share a classically fundamentalist approach to scripture: http://www.itib.org/ as well as an abiding anti-Catholicism. Paisley once held up a sign that read John Paul=Anti-Christ during one of the pope's speeches in the European Parliment. This hardly supports your claim "that during Vat. II, there was an on-going concerted world wide effort from protestant church leaders to bring down the roman catholic president of the US." Waldo, here's a link to the US Catholic Bishops' announcement about the resources they are publishing regarding Catholic teachings on presentations of the Passion and church relations with the Jews. http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-024.htm I wish they would make it all available on-line, but it seems like you have to order the booklet. While the Catholic Bishops do have movie reviews on their website, The Passion of the Christ, is not reviewed yet. Maybe tomorrow when it officially opens? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4749 Registered: 5-2001 |
Gosh I have always been torn between whether the Commies or the Mob assasinated JFK. Now I find out it is my fellow Presbyterians!! The first review I scanned on the movie says it is way to violent. You can take the action star out of Mad Max, but you can't take Mad Max out of the action star.  I was in high school when JFK was elected. There was a fair amount of talk that he would be taking his orders from the Pope. Never happened. Now being a Catholic (or a Jew for that matter) doesn't seem to be an issue in running for the Presidency. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 968 Registered: 6-2001 |
On a EWTN interview, Mel Gibson revealed that a portion of his script was stolen during the filming of The Passion. It found its way to the U.S. Bishops Council who in turn, directed Gibson to add and cut scenes, change dialogue etc. He declined the order, stating that this was a free country, not communist China or Russia. I wonder if this report IS their review of the film. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2923 Registered: 10-1999  |
The "stolen script" story has been around since earlier this year. The allegations that Gibson was somehow "ordered" to "to add and cut scenes, change dialogue etc." are probably some movie-promotion hyperbole. Some informative discussion of this may be found at Boston College's Resources on "The Passion":
| ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 480 Registered: 6-2003 |
The first time some moron calls me a Christ-Killer, I'll laugh and tell them, "yep it was me personally, me and my pals". Unfortunately when my son hears it, thats a horse of a different color. And there folks lies the problem. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6451 Registered: 4-1998  |
Reviews are in... http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/passionofthechrist/ | ||
| Soda Citizen Username: Soda Post Number: 1195 Registered: 5-2001  |
BY MITCH ALBOM FREE PRESS COLUMNIST My sister married a wonderful guy. His father was a Hungarian Jew. During World War II, he and his eight brothers and sisters were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. Some were killed in gas chambers. Others were put on a boat that was deliberately sunk. By the war's end, my brother-in-law's father was the only one left. For years, his wife would find bread stuffed under his pillow, a habit from Nazi starvation. Every now and then some nut case says the Holocaust was faked. Usually, you dismiss him as pathetic. Last week, however, a man named Hutton Gibson told a national radio host that the Holocaust never happened, that there were no concentration camps, only "work camps," and that Jews basically made the whole thing up. Hutton Gibson is Mel Gibson's father. So this nut case must be addressed. From Auschwitz to Brooklyn? He must be addressed because his son has made a movie called "The Passion of the Christ" depicting Jesus' last hours. There are fears the movie will stoke anti-Semitism. I have not seen the film yet -- it opens this week -- so I can pass no judgment on it. But I have heard his father. And he needs no movie to spew hatred. Jews "are after one world religion and one world government" Hutton Gibson declared. He said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is Jewish, should be hung. He said Holocaust museums were "a gimmick to collect money." In fact, he called the entire Holocaust "fiction." He said Jews weren't killed, "they simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles. They have to . . . go where's there's money." That would be news to my brother-in-law's aunt, another Holocaust survivor who, thanks to Nazi experiments, was left sterile, unable to have children. She still bears a Nazi number burned into her arm. I suppose Hutton Gibson would call that "a tattoo she got in the Bronx." Now the elder Gibson is not new to this stuff. He writes books and magazine articles denying the Holocaust and scorching the Jewish faith. And I am not saying Mel Gibson believes what his father does. But he needs to say so himself. A time for action Instead, to date, Gibson has refused to fully refute his father. He acknowledges the Holocaust, but says, "Nothing can drive a wedge between me and my blood. He's my father. I love him." That's fine. But denying hatred does not cancel love. By his own doing, Gibson has put himself on a stage where he has new obligations. He's not promoting a "Lethal Weapon" movie here, where he's a crazed cop who swears and drinks and sleeps with women (all pretty non-Christian stuff, by the way). No. He has made a deeply religious movie, a lightning rod for Christians and Jews, one he claims was inspired by his faith, including "going back to the things I was raised with." One presumes his father did some of that raising. Mel Gibson insists he is not anti-Semitic. He can prove it by declaring his father's words are wrong. How would Gibson feel if his father had been gassed, shot or hung in Auschwitz or Dachau, instead of his luckier fate, enjoying a good, long life hurling insults at others? The reason Nazism existed is because people lived in denial. If you visit the site of concentration camps today, you will be astounded by how close neighborhoods were to the gates. Yet no one did anything -- even as innocent people were murdered a stone's throw away. No one asked Mel Gibson to become a spokesman on faith. He did that himself. Now that he has hopped on center stage, he can't simply hear what he wants. He has an obligation to publicly shoot down his father's words. After all, Gibson said he made his movie because he could no longer deny his faith. Imagine someone denying your existence | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 416 Registered: 2-2002 |
Hey Dave, -Thanks to the link to the review website. -I'm not sure I've ever seen such a wide range of opinion on a film. -They are calling it everything from "enlightenment and poetry" to "a two hour snuff film". | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2925 Registered: 10-1999 |
Even the "rave" by Roger Ebert notes the violence of the film: "The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic." I have this feeling that a lot of these church groups who bought blocks of tickets in advance, are going to be more than a little shocked. | ||
| chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 121 Registered: 2-2003 |
The whole controversy surrounding this movie is very interesting, from a cultural view point. This is a movie about Jesus Christ and is, from what I understand is based on the gospels. The charges of anti-semitism , violence ( please,for violence andf gore look at Sci-fi any night, watch any horror movie) are more of a smoke screen for peoples discomfort with religion, most specifically, Christianiy. Jesus Christ was controversial 2000 years ago, and it appears that he remains so even today. | ||
| Cato Nova Citizen Username: Cato_nova Post Number: 73 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chocoholic: The film is not based solely on the gospels but, as commentator after commentator has pointed out, is based on an interpretation of the gospels that is out of line with mainstream Catholic thought but that accords the theology of Gibson's radical sect. I have read a substantial amount of analysis of the film, and have seen nothing that expresses discomfort with religion per se. Given that Gibson's father has said (as recently as last week) that the holocaust was a fiction, I think it is legitimate to worry about the risks of inflaming anti-semitism by protraying Jesus' antagonists as hostile Jews and Pontius Pilate as reluctantly doing their bidding. As David Denby pointed out in the New Yorker, Gibson's film shows none of Jesus' love, redemptive power, or message of healing - only his torment. And that torment according to the film is because of the acts of various Jews. | ||
| chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 122 Registered: 2-2003 |
What Mel Gibson's father has to say has nothing to do with the movie. Whether the movie it is out of the mainstream of Catholic thought has nothing to do with whether the movie adheres to the gospels. Catholic thought sometimes is directly in opposition with the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. This was the root of the Protestant reformation, and also is the root of some Catholic resistance to Vatican II. The fact of the matter is that Gospels paint of picture of a Jesus Christ that was particularly threatening to the the people in power during that time, be it religious , or to a lesser extant , secualar. The epistles of Paul and the other Apostles generally expand on this theme as they were constantly being persecuted by the religious hierarchies, Jewish and Pagan ( read the writings of Luke) because their revolutionary views of God. I really have little respect for David Denby's opinion of the movie in terms of its reflection of the heart of Christianity and Christ or A.O. Scott's opinion ( of the NY Times) because as far as I know they have neither read nor have any respect for the New testament. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6455 Registered: 4-1998 |
I predict the movie disappears off everyone's radar screen within 3 weeks. Lord of the Rings will still be going strong. If Jesus were alive he'd not worry about the money changers. He'd go right after Gibson and Icon Productions. | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 724 Registered: 3-2002  |
Gibson already stated publicly that the Holocaust happened and that millions of Jews were murdered. He doesn't share his father's whacked out views. Why don't you people view the movie first and then post? Just pretend Martin Scorsesce did it and not Gibson. It's a good thing we don't judge any MOL'ers based on their parents views. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2929 Registered: 10-1999 |
To be perfectly honest, Lumpynose, I'm not a big fan of violent movies. Even favorable reviews make "The Passion" sound like the "Kill Bill" version of the story. In addition, there has been a lot written about the movie, enough to know without seeing it that the movie adds extra-scriptural material which emphasizes the role of the Jewish leadership - starting with a severe beating with chains (even before the first trial before the religious leaders), and the presence of the High Priest within Pilate's house (although the Gospels indicate that no Jew would enter that unclean place, because of Passover). Those are just two examples. A useful summary of the movie (from a Catholic who viewed the film during its preview period), along with links to other resources, is at the following link: http://wquercus.com/passion.htm | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6457 Registered: 4-1998 |
As I recall, Jesus sais "take this bread... drink this wine in remembrance of me" (i.e. symbolic references). He didn't say, "create a feature-length movie of my horrific death in painstaking graphic detail so children can't watch and use the network of established bureaucratic religious organizations to promote the for-profit venture so the Producer doesn't have to invest much in marketing; and, while your at it, demonize my people, the Jews". | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 725 Registered: 3-2002 |
Did you see the movie yourself? Are all religious movies are bad or just this one? | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6458 Registered: 4-1998 |
I liked Lord of the Rings a lot. | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 726 Registered: 3-2002 |
Think for yourself cause I won't be there with you.... | ||
| finnegan Citizen Username: Finnegan Post Number: 72 Registered: 6-2001 |
For those interested, here's the link to the review of "The Passion of the Christ" from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops: http://www.usccb.org/movies/p/thepassionofthechrist.htm chocoholic: Religious scholars have been in the forefront of those worried about this film. See nohero's link to read Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Jewish theological concerns. The NYTimes has carried stories for months of Catholic scholars (like Mary Boys and Eugene Fischer) concerned that this film will be a set back for Catholic-Jewish relations. I only wish that you were right and that discomfort with this film was based on its portrayal of the radical message, unconventional life, and innovative teachings of Jesus, all of which did challenge conventional power (political and religious) arrangements. But for that to be the case, it seems to me the movie would have to focus on Jesus' public ministry (all 3 years of it) and not just celebrate the final 12 grisly hours of his life. And, perhaps you did not intend to offend, but your claim that "Catholic thought sometimes is directly in opposition with the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament." (emphasis added) would be rejected by most Catholics and insulting to many. |
