February 15, 2004

Gibson’s passion

Lent, our traditional season of repentance and remembrance, begins this month (see the pope’s Lenten message, Page 14), but the observance this year is also focused on the Ash Wednesday opening of Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.”

The actor, who sank $25 million of his own money into the film, deserves a lot of credit.

Not necessarily for the film; that’ll have to wait for reviews of the final, final, final cut. Credit, though, for his masterful promotion of “The Passion,” which has become his passion, too. For months, Gibson has skillfully wielded the controversy, praise, challenge, anger, joy, fear and hope over the film, which vividly recounts the last 12 hours of Jesus’ earthly life.

Media, secular and religious, have scrambled to write about it, even recognizing that the legitimate disagreements over the film became part of the Hollywood hype. We and other media simply had no choice. And Gibson knew it.

Showing the film to audiences certain to love—or hate—it created the dramatic thread which runs through all great stories: conflict. Conflict sells; salvation and even eternal truths don’t.

The debate still goes on about what (if anything) the pope said after seeing the flick. A thumbs-up would have been a box-office boon, but Vatican insiders insist he made no comment.

And the hype continues. We’ve received well-meaning e-mails from people pleading for us—and the church—to “help Gibson get his film in theaters” because it’s allegedly being “blocked” by pressure groups. Sorry, “The Passion” needs no help.

As a result of the publicity, many people will see the film, including Catholics, though Gibson seems to be focusing on evangelical churches. Of course, a focus on the passion of Jesus Christ, especially during Lent, can’t be bad. Or can it? What about the accusations of anti-Semitism in the film?

Some Jews and even Christians are concerned that the violent and bloody crucifixion film (R rated, not for the kiddies) and a reportedly less-than-kind depiction of Jews will rekindle the charge that the “Jews killed Jesus,” which is at the heart of anti-Semitism and has contributed to discrimination, pogroms and even the Holocaust.

Supporters point out “The Passion” is rooted in the Gospels and uses Scripture’s words. Yes, but there is more to consider here. Which is why U.S. bishops have pointed back to their 1988 statement about passion plays and cautioning that dramatic depictions of parts of Scripture provides for great “artistic creativity and insight but also for abuses and prejudices.”

Since Vatican II, the Catholic understanding has been that the Jews were not collectively responsible for Christ’s death, despite some interpretations of the Gospels and Jewish-Catholic relations are being healed after centuries of distrust.

Certainly no right-thinking Christian could believe the Scriptures anti-Semitic, but after 3,000 years of bias, some people could be swayed. Such discrimination is a stain on society and Christianity.

Gibson insists that his film demonstrates that all humanity—not just the Jews—were responsible for the crucifixion. And some Jews who have seen the film refute the charges of anti-Semitism.

Gibson is often described as a devout Catholic; he is not, however, a Roman Catholic. He rejects the Second Vatican Council and has close ties to traditionalist groups, many of whom maintain that the papacy has been vacant since Pope Pius XII.

Still, this is not a knock on Gibson’s faith. “The Passion of the Christ” is undoubtedly a powerful film, connecting viewers with the horrible agony of the crucifixion, reminding us of one of the central tenets of faith, that to die for the sins of humankind was not a pleasant experience. Jesus’ violent death is a central theme of faith. But it also must be appreciated in light of the resurrection. Christians are still an “Easter people.”