A local "review" of "The Passion"...months later

I read this "critique" of Mel Gibson's "The Pasion of the Christ" in the St. Louis Review, our archdiocesan newspaper, today. I find it difficult to understand why the Review would waste valuable space with this "review" when much better critiques have been available for months.

I. . .believe that the film has major historical and theological flaws that should not be ignored.

[M]any more people will [now] have the opportunity to see it [since it's release on DVD].

The film also may find its way into either adult or high school catechesis. This troubles me because Gibson’s version of the passion is not as consistent with Church teaching as many think.

So what do we see next? Not a critique of the film but an ad hominem directed toward Mel Gibson:

My first reservation concerns Gibson himself.

...Catholics should be aware, despite media misconceptions, that Gibson is not a Roman Catholic.

So to whom does the reviewer go to get the "facts"?

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles has said Gibson has no active relationship to the archdiocese where he lives...

The cardinal emphasized that if one denies the Second Vatican Council, as Gibson does, he is denying the Church’s magisterium.

Yes, the "reviewer" relies on a stalwart bastion of orthodoxy for his attack.

I have never heard Mel Gibson deny the Second Vatican Council (how could he? It did happen). I suspect what he means is that Mel Gibson has denied the teachings of the council. I have not heard him do this explicitly, nor have I seen proof of him doing this although I have heard it discussed many times in many places. Nevertheless, this has little to do with the movie itself which is what the subject matter purportedly concerns. But no, after attacking Gibson, we get to the movie.

[Gibson] has produced a filmed version of the Passion Play genre.

Unfortunately because these works compress elements of the four Gospels, they obscure the theological integrity of each evangelist.

And the point is what? Gibson had a two hour window in which to do his work.

Also because the Passion Play is a drama, it must include antagonists.

As does everyday life itself. Again, the point being what?....Here it comes, the fear of stirring up a wave of antisemitism.

If seen outside its historical and biblical context, this conflict has led to certain anti-Jewish feelings.

I don’t believe Gibson set out to make an anti-Semitic film.

Implying what? Theat even though he may not have set out to do it, that this is what happened? Lord, please have mercy on us!

Anyway, I sense a "BUT" coming on...

But he wasn’t guided by Vatican II’s clear teaching ("Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions") and modern Catholic biblical scholarship.

OK, I think I get it...he did not consult ecumenical bureaucrats at the USCCB or the Higher-Critical biblical 'scholars'. Therefore, the movie is full of error. He is incapable of understanding certain biblical passages, just as most Catholics are without the 'guidance' of those blessed with this recently discovered knowledge. It's certainly a miracle that the Fathers and Doctors and Saints of the Church were able to make it without these 'scholars'.

Having said this, the "reviewer" then proceeds to question all other film reviewers that did not use the document, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion" for their reviews.

I find it strange that very few evaluated the film by the standards given by our own U.S. Catholic bishops in the 1988 document.

This document further reminds us that Judaism at the time of Jesus was a rich and complex group of various movements such as the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This is never shown in the film. All we see are a large group of shouting, angry people, who with few exceptions, are bullied by the high priest and temple leaders.

This is not the film I saw. I witnessed a complex mix of different attitudes of the people in the film. Some were angry, some saddened, some indifferent...

The most glaring departure from history in the film is its portrayal of Pontius Pilate. The Gospels offer conflicting views of him, yet we know from history that he was a brutal tyrant who wouldn’t have hesitated to crucify another Jew.

Something is wrong with this picture. While there was certainly no love lost between Pilate and the Jews, it is clear from Scripture that Pilate tried at least twice to spare our Lord's life. Pilate, while wanting to release Jesus, cowered and gave in to the crowd only when he was accused of being "no friend of Caesar's". His reluctance was demonstrated by the fact that he even "washed his hands" to indicate that he was innocent of Jesus' blood, and relented thus satisfying the crowd's thirst for blood and protecting his career and life. This, I believe, happens to be scripturally factual, modern critical biblical scholarship notwithstanding.

We who have been critical because of problematic theological and historical concerns with "The Passion of the Christ" have to acknowledge that those inspired by it had a far different experience.

Indeed, some of us were moved to tears because of our sins and what our sins have done to our Lord who suffered and died out of love for us.

I cannot understand how any Christian could not be so moved to repentance after visualizing what our Lord endured.

Thus I encourage those who would watch or use the movie to proceed with caution.

Caution, indeed! If it were left to people like this, we would have only sanitized versions of the Passion, versions which do little or nothing to bring us to conversion.

Or, before you see the movie, read the book published by our own bishops, "The Bible, the Jews and the Death of Jesus: A Collection of Catholic Documents."

Many bishops recommended that we see the movie. However, I don't recall many of them recommending the book, which purportedly was published out of fear of a rise of antisemitism stemming from the movie.

Or better yet, stick with the Gospels.

Wouldn't we need a "modern Catholic biblical scholar" to tell us how to understand it?

Enjoy the article here.