DOCTRINAL NOTE ON THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, A MEL GIBSON FILM

            [unofficial translation]

Fr. Philippe Vallin, c.o.

Secretary of the Doctrinal Commission of the French Bishops Conference

March 2004

1. We must acknowledge the personal commitment of an actor and talented director, who puts the considerable resources of his art at the service of a testimony of faith. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of this enthusiasm for Christ, the “Suffering Servant”.

2. At the same time no Christian is assured that the production is an unadulterated account. It would be an injustice to reproach Mel Gibson for personalizing his view of the Lord, by imbuing it with the hues of his own spirituality. The film, then, like all works of imaginary art departing from the four Gospel accounts, represents the mysteries of Jesus according to one point of view. Hence, it cannot escape the inaccuracies, some of considerable magnitude, imposed by its choices.

3. This account by a sincere Christian must, however, be subjected , more than others, to the scrutiny of Church leaders, for two reasons:

• Mel Gibson has successfully and with technical prowess made an effective film in the genre of a Gladiator. It will meet the tastes of the cinema-going public and particularly of the young generation poorly informed by Christian convictions: the violence and the way it is currently spectacularly represented, mixed with allusive and indistinct sacred concepts meets the very strong but very suspect expectations of the public. Some call this universe of strong and mixed sensations Gothic. In this, just as in Gibson’s film which departs several times from the Gospel texts, the demonic has an exaggerated role. This said, what Christian artist can exempt /dispense himself, in the name of an unattainable, universal ethic, to satisfy, in some way, the wishes of the public such as he finds it, such as it is?

• In our world a film is not in the same category as an altarpiece hidden in some discreet provincial museum: the crucifix on the Issenheim altarpiece at Colmar also portrays unbearable graphic violence. But its impact is culturally less invasive than that of a film which is being promoted on a worldwide scale.

4. From a theological perspective the film’s most problematic aesthetic option lies in the decision to isolate the passion from the teachings of Jesus, on the one hand, and from the resurrection narratives on the other. The graphic violence in these isolated passion scenes takes on an almost absurd brutality, hardly compatible with the flashbacks to the public life of Christ and his three years of teaching. It is possible, but not certain, that the millions of American viewers of the film have a sufficient biblically informed culture to be able to fill in and thus confront the very deficient themes and reasoning into which the story of Jesus is plunged beginning with the opening scene of the agony.

In any case, concerning the French public, particularly those who risk the fascination of the film’s aesthetics and whose praise will probably be spread by word of mouth to the ears of the young, it is regrettable that the many complex themes which gradually portray both the attraction of the crowds to Jesus as well as the controversy regarding his person, his intentions and his mystery are eclipsed. The references to this in the film are much too elusive, particularly for viewers with little understanding of the Christian faith.

Yet, Jesus scandalized people. That which theology habitually refers to as his claims (to pardon sin; as master of its spirit, to transgress the letter of the Sabbath; to relativize the Jerusalem temple, etc.), provoked legitimate questions among his brother Jews. His responses did not automatically convince. They required that a Pharisee, a Roman centurion, a publican, a leper, rely on his amazing authority through a radically transforming act of faith.

The hour of the passion comes only after many other hours of Christ’s life among the people – not among brutes – hours serious and happy, clear and obscure, irenic or polemical. For a long time the words of the Word Incarnate, true Word of God, preceded the terrible silences of “the silent lamb led to the slaughter,” and they were crafted to be understood  “according to the Scriptures.” The inadequately informed viewer is exposed to the risk of perceiving in these two hours of horrible lynching only an erratic event, a furious outburst of wholly demented and incomprehensible violence. Worse: it is possible that Jesus’ attitude be interpreted according to paradoxical categories associated with a way of non-violence, or even according to neurotic understandings related to sadomasochism. In sum: Those who do not act in self-defense, end up inviting blows upon themselves. Far from conveying this kind of perspective, the Gospels are very nuanced, multiple, and above all filled with the great freedom of the Savior: they are totally free of such coarse machinations.

On the other side, contrary to the spirit of the Gospels, the resurrection is portrayed in the film as a solitary and self-focused event, replacing the logic of encounter and the apparition accounts. Yet, the resurrection accounts postulate a mysterious love relationship between the Risen One and carefully chosen witnesses, and a renewed communion with the disciples. 

5. This option to isolate the Passion leads to another theological ambiguity of great importance: It is not a necessity that, in view of the sin of the world, the intention to save and to pardon for which the Son of God came among humanity must automatically happen through him offering himself through his blood. As if the all-powerful God were for all eternity subjected to a sovereign rule which obliges and constrains him, even him, the infinitely free God: the injustice of humanity can only be atoned, rectified, cured by the justice of God the Father but at the price of the suffering and death of the Son.

On the contrary, Jesus says: “”No one can take my life from me unless I lay it down of my own free will.” “No one” can take the life of Christ, still less the mandate of an abstract law of compensation. That is contrary to the love and mercy of God which are represented before us, for our conversion of heart, the logical destroyer of sin. It is this logic, active in the history of the world and among us, to which even a just man, a good, innocent man gives himself. It follows then that the agony to which Jesus submits while still alive is intimately related to the sin of this world, and he shows even in his death the extent of his love: his total freedom to love will overcome the normal demands of sin.

There is no longer anything to lose, nothing to calculate, nothing to abstract: this man who is God, and he alone, was able to love us in spite of our sins in the incomparable, unique, hopeless hour of the Passion. The Council of Trent, quoting St. Anselm, suggests that he “atoned” in this way: a different way than Mel Gibson’s to interpret the mysterious prophecy of the Suffering Servant. (Is 53)

One need not imply that the film director is unaware of this mystery of divine mercy. However, the film’s need for bloody atonement is in great danger of concealing the Son’s decision to love. In the film mercy is less obvious than the madness, and even the insanity of sin. Once again, Christians well informed by their faith will be able to compensate for this.  But the others….

6. The cross which the Church celebrates is the one Jesus asks his disciples to take upon their shoulders to follow and imitate him. However, Gibson’s film portrays an inimitable, revolting, absurd cross. It appears, however, that we can infer from the Gospel of John that the Mother of God and “the beloved disciple” were able to surpass the extreme pain before the crucified Jesus, and that they were able to contemplate to some extent the extremity of his love. It is this love alone that one needs to imitate. Perhaps we and the entire Church are gradually beginning to sense what the Easter witnesses intended to communicate to all Christians, the mystery summarized in what one would want to cry out to Mel Gibson: “The cross, we found it beautiful!” Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Maximilian Kolbe embraced another cross – the cross of total love, the glorious cross, the cross of life.

Upon seeing this film one is tempted to ask oneself whether the only authentic disciples of Mel Gibson’s Jesus would perhaps be those exotic candidates which the television shows us every Good Friday, who in imitation of the Crucified enact the sufferings of Christ (the blows, the wounds, the nails), displays so unrelated to the depths of His love and so foreign to it. The Church’s liturgy provides us with a balance in this: the Passion is read publicly only on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. On the other hand, at every Eucharist the Cross of the Lord associates him with his glory in the power of the God who is love.

7. One must refrain from making an indictment of antisemitism against the producer of the film. However, objectively it remains true that the technical option to not portray any of the controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees, the scribes, the Chief Priests implies its presence. The Sanhedrin Jews in the film are largely deprived of the opportunity to express their motivation. Recipients of Revelation, they were surely surprised, offended and contradicted by the preaching of the Rabbi from Nazareth. But they are introduced in the film at a time when they are raging in a demented, invincible and insidious manner. This at least is contrary to the dramatic integrity of the Gospels. Furthermore, unlike the boorish Roman soldiers who will not be remembered in 2004 France, the Jewish people through the grace of God have an indisputable, historical continuity. Why would they not be upset by this truncated representation of the scandal provoked by Jesus among his brethren through his pretentious claim to be the mediator of a new covenant which he will fulfill? Scandal of most profound love; but those among us who understand it, do so through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This film will be seen by many: Will they be able to enter the mystery of Jesus more deeply through the dialogues in which they will wisely engage in a spirit of faith, after the effects of the sensory assaults have diminished?