Post your thoughts on the Mel Gibson "Passion" interview.

I wasn’t sure where to put this, so if the mods want to kick it over to cafe, feel free.
I thought he was trying too hard to be charming. He seemed to defend his position well enough, but really overworked the charm part.

When he gave Diane the flinty eyed look " Don’t go there, Diane." (regarding his Father) I was impressed, I think we got a glimpse of him that says he could crush you like a bug.

[rant] The commercials that came along inbetween have unleashed a plethora of Last Supper Participants Movie of the Week: St. Paul. Judas. Who is next in getting their own mini series? Doubting Thomas? Three down, nine to go. Oye.[/rant]

Also, Mr Ujest wants to go see this film. I’d rather watch " Life of Brian".

He’s not a messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!

He was okay. I admired his “Don’t go there, Diane” when asked about his father. I admired that a lot. Just right, I think.

I agree that he was super-charming, and sometimes it didn’t work 100% for me. I tend to like Mel Gibson but I don’t follow his career all that well and I don’t see all his movies. He seems likeable enough to me.

From most of what I had heard, I had expected to have a negative reaction to what Mel Gibson would say about the film. I am a Christian (not a fundamentalist) and sensitive to comments that denigrate other religions or groups of people.

But I was pleased at his personal interpretation that we are all responsible and basically alike. I haven’t seen the movie, but judging from what was said, he was faithful to the Gospels.

He says that he does not deny the Holocaust and I take him at his word. But he did appear to me to seem a little uneasy answering some questions dealing with that.

I didn’t think that he was rude in the manner in which he refused to discuss his father. He was assertive and firm, not aggressive. (His father is a writer who does deny the Holocaust, I believe.)

I was rather startled in the way in which he expressed his desire to kill someone in particular. He said that he made the remark in a half-joking way and also to let off steam. I can believe that. But he is obviously still very angry. He apologized to one person involved, but not the other. How can he bear a grudge and still take Holy Communion?

Gibson reveals that it is his own left hand that holds the nail that is driven into the hand of Jesus on the cross. That says to me that he gets it.

I did not realize until watching this interview that so many Jews are intimidated when they see someone wearing a cross. That is so strange to me. Sometimes I wear a Star-of-David too. And I would wear other religious symbols if I had them.

I understand his unwillingness to talk about his father. He certainly doesn’t agree with his father’s views, but he doesn’t have to be forced to publically berate his father on national TV either, just to satisfy people.

Frankly, I find the issue a little surreal. From what I have heard, the film is fairly nasty and unflattering to the Pharisees and non-christian converts (i.e., the Jews), but then that’s always been part of the story, and frankly, it’s very hard for Christianity to avoid the Jews as a catch-all symbol of people who just don’t get it. Sure, “everyone” is responsible for Jesus’ death, but the Jews are not only responsible, but inherently unreppentant, and in the Passion play, their role is to symbolize precisely what Christians loathe about people who refuse their message.

But this whole controversy does seem suspiciously overblown, especially given that most of the people boostering for the film seem to be looking for signs of persecution so that they can set up seeing the film as being tantamount to striking some blow against all that Christians despise in society and in unbelievers. Getting particular play is the idea that Gibson is doing something shocking and brave in telling the “unvarnished” and un-pc truth about the Gospels: despite, of course, the many elements taken not from the Gospels but from 13th century nun fantasies.

I liked it because they had Dominic Crosson for a bit. He’s an absolutely brilliant scholar and I once went to a lecture he gave on the Passion of Christ and it seriously changed how I viewed Christianity (it a good way…) It’s a shame that they didn’t allow him more time to explain his problem with the Passion and the lack of context because his view is extremely interesting.

And his book Excavating Jesus is pretty good too (and I’m not just saying that because it was co-authored by one of my favorite profs…)

As for the rest. shrug Gibson seems sincere and excited about the project, but he’s an actor. For all I know, he was playing a roll. The “come across as deeply sincere and excited about the project” roll. Charming, to be sure. but I’m just naturally suspicious of actors, I guess…

St. Paul wasn’t at the Last Supper. (Unless he was one of the waiters or something.) And there were thirteen people there, in total.

(No, I haven’t seen the interview, I was just giving in to my urge to nitpick.)

I am confident that he will make a lot of money off that film.

I look forward to seeing it.

What do you wanrt him to say? “Yes, my dad’s an anti-semitic loon! Let’s discuss him for awhile!”

I was pleased with the interview; I thought Gibson clearly and articulately explained his position and the context his movie is being presented and received, and on a personal note, I agree with most of what he said. Though I, too, thought he was trying too hard to be charming, and failing at times.

I’m seeing sort of the opposite – I haven’t been following the course of this movie too closely, but from what I have seen in the news and on other messageboards is that people seem to be (deliberately or not) misinterpreting just what is being portrayed in the movie and what Gibson’s motives are.

Take, for example, Dominic Crosson’s complaint in the interview last night that the movie doesn’t explain the context of the Passion and why Jesus was so hated by the authorities. Well, duh. The movie is reenacting the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life – he wasn’t performing miracles on the Sabbath or warning the Pharisees about hypocrisy during the last 12 hours of his life according to the Gospels. He was getting arrested, tortured, and crucified. That’s what the movie is limited to; that’s why it’s called “The Passion.” I thought this was a silly thing to complain about.

I found Gibson to be slightly punchy at times, but then again, that is one thing I like about his interviewing style. He has always been that way, to no fault in my opinion. He’s sincere with what he believes and plays the part of being sincere.
As for the movie itself, I heard it is inspiring a great deal of anti-semitic overtones. Apparently Gibson portrays Pilot as a weak manipulated man, driven to this decision by the hoards to Jews wanting Jesus dead. I’ll wait for more commentary after I see the film.

What is your understanding of the pre-requisites for Holy Communion?

One has to wonder if Mel Gibson was aware of that. I distinctly heard him say that one could read about Paul in the gospels, which you definitely cannot seeing as how A) Paul would have been only a few years old at that point in the story and B) Paul was not named Paul at the time. One would read about Paul’s adventures in the epistles. Maybe it was just a stupid flub, but for a guy making a Jesus movie I’d expect more precision in NT discussion.

One must be a worthy vessel by putting such negative thoughts behind you. And in Gibson’s interpretation of Catholicism that can only be done through the sacrement of Penance. To allow himself to continue to carry the Cardinal Sin of Wrath adds to his load of sin and to receive communion while knowingly in a state of sin he commits yet another. They just keep piling up. Ask your parents, though I thought you Hispanics all knew how this worked. :wink:

I thought Gibson did well and came across as less artificial than most celebrities Diane interviews, though I didn’t see the whole interview. And I respect his not wanting to discuss crazy old Hutton. And did he really say that his wife, a good woman who happens to be an Episcopalian, will go to Hell because she isn’t Catholic? If so I can’t say I am surprised because I grew up in the same pre-Vatican II Catholicism. And I wasn’t surprised that he claimed, and I accept, that he is not anti-Semitic. Nope, we were raised to think of Jews as merely poor, benighted souls whose final trips to Hell were inevitable but nothing personal. Same with Muslims (we called them Mohammedans) and other non-Christians who had heard of Jesus but had not accepted Him. It was sad that they had chosen to live in error but they weren’t really part of the Elect in the first place, anyway, having been born in another faith.

No, our special approbation was reserved for the Protestants, those treacherous, traitorous, heretics who had taken the very Words of the Lord and warped them to serve their own ends. Monsters who had spat upon the Pope and the Holy Mother Church and had turned majestic Christianity into a grotesque parody, with services in the vernacular, women in the clergy, birth control, and other abominations too horrifying to mention. It could even be said that I was taught by some of the older nuns and priests to hate Protestants and as late as five years ago, though I had rejected Roman Catholicism twenty five years before, I could still not bring myself to become one.

My wife was raised as a Methodist and she saw the same thing in reverse. Her parents only accepted me because I was not a practicing Catholic. She actually heard in church archaic terms like “popery.” Ministers told stories of how Catholics believed that unbaptised babies, through no fault of their own, burned in Hell. (Technically, no. Limbo, a nice place like Heaven except without the Divine Presence, was reserved for those good people who had never been exposed to Jesus and had therefore not made a conscious rejection of Him, like pagans in Darkest Africa and unbaptised babies. Yes, a nasty belief. No, not as bad as it was made out to be.)

This was how it stood forty years ago. The Thirty Years War had cooled to three hundred years of cold war. Hate the Jews? Who had the time? We were too busy hating the Lutherans. The infighting between splinter groups is often more viscious and personal. Which is why I am so confused by the Evangelicals’ love of Mel’s movie. When a Fundie friend called the other day to invite us to a special screening I wanted to ask her if she realized all this, as she is too young to remember the Ecumenical Council when an effort was made to end the centuries of hatred and mistrust. I wanted to say, “Don’t you realize that Mel Gibson is theologically just this side of Torquemada and is convinced that you and your children are heretics and will burn in Hell forever for your false beliefs? Don’t you think maybe you should reconsider supporting him so heartily?” Yeesh.

I am happy to have gotten away from the cult of death that was pre-Vatican II Catholicism. I’ll leave the celebration of Christ’s death to Mel and a bunch of Irish grandmothers. I’ll leave seeing how gruesome one can depict Christ’s death to Mr Gibson and Matthias Grunewald and Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich. I’ll stick with a faith that celebrates His life.

I found most of his responses pretty even-handed (and possibly well-rehearsed). But his demeanor freaked me out. He switched between twitchy and forced charming way too often. Plus his reponse to reporters “going after” his father: they’re trying to drive a wedge between him and his father. Uh, no. His father has published books and is a Holocaust-denier and based on those published beliefs, one wonders how far the apple falls from the tree. Apparently not too far. I’m glad I saw the interview because I was willing to cut Mel some slack until last night.
I’m still going to see the movie but maybe a month after it opens to avoid a fundie-filled audience. Maybe I’ll wear “I found Jesus. He was behind the sofa the whole time.” shirt.

Is holding a grudge a mortal sin?

This is just weird. For one thing, venting anger to a third party is not a mortal sin, and it’s not wrath. Second of all, maybe he went to confession that same day. You don’t know. So why imply that Gibson is mired in sin? And what’s with the joke about Hispanics?

Whatever Gibson has said about his wife’s final destination in the past, last night he said that he believes that you don’t even have to be Christian to reach heaven.

That’s not what Dominic Crosson was referring too. Not the miracles or hypocrisy, but the political motivations. His main complaint was that the Jews welcomed him into town on Palm Sunday and then turned on him so quickly…why? But that’s his problem with all passion plays, not just Gibson’s movie, and that’s what he lectured so brilliantly on.

Of course, none of that was actually mentioned on the show, so I can only assume they edited it out for time or whatever.

Nope.

At least, nope as far as the understanding of practical Catholics in union with the Holy See goes – if you have a cite from Mr. Gibson’s brand of faith that contradicts this, I’d be happy to listen and learn.

But your post above contains a number of errors from the perspective of Roman Catholic practice. The rule regarding communion simply is that you cannot recieve that sacrament while in a state of mortal sin. (Can. 916)

“Bearing a grudge” is not a mortal sin. A mortal sin is characterized by full knowledge of the act, full advertence of the will, and concerning a grave matter. Fear, temperament and pathological states, insofar as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. It’s absolutely unclear to me how “bearing a grudge” can be considered either a grave matter or, indeed, a matter subject to full advertance of the will.

  • Rick