Protestant,
Catholic and Jewish
Catholic-Jewish
Studies Program of the
Shalom,
Several weeks ago, Rev. Paul Rutgers, the distinguished Executive Presbyter
Emeritus of Chicago, called to ask if I would be interested in attending an
invitation-only screening of Mel Gibson's, ”The Passion of the Christ” in
its completed, or nearly completed form. Much
as I was itching to see the film, it was clear that the ticket would be put to
better use in the hands of Rabbi David Fox Sandmel, spiritual leader of
Paul and David attended the screening together. Their
extended discussion during the drive home inspired two papers of reactions and
commentary which I am privileged to share with you, along with a commentary by
Fr. John Pawlikowski, OSM, a leading champion of Catholic-Jewish
relations who was one of nine Jewish and Catholic scholars who reviewed an early
script of the movie.
Any film dealing with the circumstances of Jesus' death is
bound to provoke controversy. Gibson exacerbates this by rejecting
post-Shoah principles for interpreting the Passion as they are articulated in
the Second Vatican Council's landmark document, Nostra Aetate, and in
parallel statements from most mainline Protestant churches.
While it is highly unlikely that the film will precipitate an increase in
violent anti-Semitism, the re-introduction of stereotypical religious imagery
that had virtually disappeared in this country, super-heated by Gibson's use of
violence as his "cinematic language," to use Peter Boyer's famous
phrase, plants seeds that we dare not ignore.
Fr. Pawlikowski, Rev. Rutgers and Rabbi Sandmel speak as
one in advocating education, dialogue and introspection as the proper approaches
to addressing the issues at hand. In
the prophetic tradition of beating swords into plowshares, they urge that the
film, and the controversy it has ignited, be transformed into a "teaching
moment" for both Christians and Jews.
But even as we warn against anti-Semitic aspects of “The
Passion,” and call upon our Christian colleagues to communicate this warning
to their parishioners, we must be aware of importance of the suffering of
Jesus for Christian theology, and be sensitive to the feelings of those millions
of good Christians who will be deeply touched by the film without being at all
influenced by its portrayal of Jewish brutality, and accusations of Jewish
complicity in the crucifixion. The
film is filled with images associated with historic anti-Semitism.
But being moved by it does not make one an anti-Semite.
Maintaining a proper balance between criticism and understanding is a key
to preventing the film from tearing at the fabric of interfaith relations that
is the proudest achievement of American religious pluralism.
Regrettably, interfaith relations have already been damaged
by the reprehensible manner in which the film has been marketed, a cynical
campaign that culminated in blatantly misquoting the Pope. Invitation-only
screenings for carefully-selected audiences may be good movie industry strategy.
But when target groups are chosen on the basis of religious belief, in this case
deliberately excluding Jews and liberal Christians, the tactic is bound to raise
suspicions and engender divisiveness. Gibson's reckless statements about
Jews have added additional fuel.
An even more serious impact could be felt in countries currently experiencing an
alarming increase in anti-Semitism, some of it violent.
Finally, it must be remembered that Gibson’s primary
purpose in making "The Passion of Jesus Christ" is to defy, and in
time overturn, norms established by the Second Vatican Council, which he rejects
as a member of a sect calling itself Traditionalist, or the True Church.
Seen in this light, the controversy is essentially a struggle within
Roman Catholicism, coming at a time of papal transition.
But an internal conflict of this nature is by no means unique to the
Catholic church, and the implications for Jews are enormous.
Should ultra-conservative forces gain the upper hand, the productive, if
sometimes troubled, dialogue between Christians and Jews on the international,
national and local levels could be undermined.
Properly
addressed, “The Passion of the Christ” could be a blessing in disguise for
interfaith relations, drawing Christians and Jews into frank dialogue on issues
that, despite gigantic strides forward, still threaten to divide us.
As David Sandmel urges, let us strive to make this is “teachable
moment.”
L’Shalom,
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Executive Vice President
MEL GIBSON’S
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
A
Jewish View
Mel
Gibson's soon to be released movie, "The Passion of the Christ," is
best understood in the tradition of the Passion Play, dramatic adaptations of
the Jesus' death which have long been a source of distress to the Jewish
community. By portraying Jews as the
evil, bloodthirsty killers of Jesus, and thus enemies of God and all Christians,
Passion Plays have contributed to the presence of anti-Semitism in Western
culture.
Indeed,
Hitler praised the Passion Play at
In
recent years, Christians who acknowledge the historic role of churches in
fomenting anti-Semitism, have turned a critical eye on the way Jews and Judaism
are depicted in their liturgical and educational materials.
Christian sensitivity in these areas has fostered significant changes in
traditional church doctrine and practice on the part of both Roman Catholics and
Protestants, such as those stemming from the Second Vatican Council's landmark Nostra
Aetate (1965), and the Declaration of the
Since
the Gospel accounts themselves portray the Jews in negative terms (a subject on
which there is a lengthy bibliography), it is worth considering whether one can
present a play or movie that is faithful to the sacred scriptures and message of
Christianity without denigrating Jews and Judaism.
Is the role of the Jews as portrayed in the New Testament central to the
foundational Christian message that Christ suffered and died to atone for the
sins of humanity?
The
challenge to anyone staging the Passion today is how to treat the anti-Jewish
aspects of the biblical texts. Do
they constitute a major theme? Are
they exaggerated or embellished to make them even more prominent and negative?
In
this regard, the Gibson film is problematic.
Gospel accounts are used selectively, and are both embellished and
exaggerated. For example, Matthew
27:24-25 states:
"So
when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning,
he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent
of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.' Then the people as a whole answered,
'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (NRSV)
In
the history of Christian anti-Semitism, this verse serves as biblical warrant
for holding all Jews at all times responsible for the death of Jesus.
Augustine, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther all use it
in this way. Yet the verse
occurs only in Matthew. It is not
found in Mark, Luke, or John, and is thus not essential in depicting Jesus'
death. The decision to include it is
a conscious choice made by Mr. Gibson.
The
film contains numerous scenes that are not found in the New Testament.
According to all four Gospels, after Jesus is arrested in the
This
episode appears nowhere in the New Testament.
It is drawn from the visions of a 19th century mystic nun.
None of the Gospels provides any information about what, if anything,
occurs on the way from
The
point is that the Gospels do not report this one way or the other.
It has been added by filmmaker. While
it certainly heightens the suffering of Jesus, which likely is why Gibson added
it, it is, at the same time, an unnecessary embellishment and exaggeration of
Jewish mistreatment of Jesus.
These
are but two examples of many in the film. They highlight the central problems of
any attempt to dramatize the Passion. First,
most viewers, even those who are familiar with the Gospels, will find it
difficult to discern which parts of the biblical text have been retained, and
which have been omitted. There
likely will be even greater confusion over what is biblical and what has been
added by the filmmaker, either from his own imagination or from extra-biblical
sources. This latter point is
particularly damaging to Gibson's claim to having made a historically accurate
film.
Second,
by not contextualizing the event, and the circumstances under which the Gospels
that report it were written, the film poses a real danger that the legacy of
Christian anti-Jewish prejudice will be passed on to another generation.
Christians need to understand and acknowledge that this story, which lies
at the heart of their faith, has contributed to centuries of pain for Jews.
Recognizing that fact need not diminish the power and meaning of the
suffering of Jesus for Christians. Indeed,
separating the Passion from its anti-Jewish history is a way of modeling the
love for humanity that both Judaism and Christianity affirm.
Conversely,
Jews need to understand why Christians find the Passion to be a moving and
religiously significant story.
The
release of "The Passion of the Christ" occasions a "teachable
moment." We are fortunate to
live in an era in which Jews and Christians agree about the importance of
fostering mutual respect and understanding.
There are rich resources available to both scholar and layperson that
deal directly with these complex historical and theological issues.
We should make use of these in fostering interfaith dialogue.
The
excitement engendered by the release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the
Christ" invites Jews and Christians to address these matters frankly from
the pulpit, in the classroom, and in meetings of clergy associations.
Christians, especially, must honestly confront the history of
anti-Judaism that is tied to the Passion. We
should not miss this opportunity.
Rabbi
David Fox Sandmel is spiritual leader of
MEL
GIBSON’S THE PASSION OF THE
CHRIST
A
Protestant View
Mel Gibson's still to be released movie, "The Passion of the
Christ," will soon be in local theaters. Few if any films in recent
memory have been preceded by such interest, praise and controversy.
Many of the carefully selected few who have seen the movie
have reacted with passionate intensity, lauding the film as a faithful
presentation of the biblical accounts of Christ's arrest and crucifixion, and as
a powerful tool for deepening the faith of believers, as well as for confronting
unbelievers with Christ's challenge, "Come, follow me."
At the same time, some who have seen the film are more
critical and skeptical, and concerned about its affect on the millions of movie
goers who may well flock to the theaters to see it for themselves, all of which
would seem to suggest – if nothing else – that more than beauty is
in the eye of the beholder.
What are both groups seeing?
They are seeing the re-enactment of a world shaping event
in human history, an emotional and painful series of events, skillfully filmed
in dark and brooding mists and colors. They are seeing a familiar story
made painfully and –-- in some ways --- brilliantly "more real"
through the powerful art form of cinema. They are seeing innocence and
goodness suffer and die at the hands of evil and corruption, and they may well
touch something of the enormity of evil in this world and, perhaps, move closer
to confronting the mystery of good and evil, of human sin and the grace of God.
There is, however, more to the film, and this is where
honest questions and concerns arise.
More critical is the matter of the extreme violence in the
film. Few if any films have portrayed the terrible destruction of an
individual, piece-by-piece, bone by bone, tissue-by-tissue. The depravity,
the blood and gore, the inch-by-inch, hour-by-hour scourging and abuse of Jesus
extends over at least half the entire film. Addressed to a
contemporary culture obsessed and addicted to violence, is such a thing necessary,
healing, persuasive, helpful? One suspects Jesus of Nazareth would
have his doubts. In many ways "The Passion" represents an
extension of its producer-director's past use of violence as the heart of his
cinema-graphic language.
Equally critical are the ways in which the film places the
blame for Jesus' crucifixion. Granted, one might well come away from the
film with more than one conclusion. Was it Pilate and the Romans?
Was it the high priest Caiaphas and the cohort of chief priests around him?
Was it the somewhat obscure (in the film, at least) Scribes and Pharisees?
Was it the massed, blood thirsty crowd shouting "Crucify him!"?
The film, like the four Gospels, may intend to leave the question in mid-air,
but the film is filled with "bad guys," and apart from the several
Roman soldiers (most of whom were inhuman brutes) the vast majority of those who
did it are clearly Jews.
No surprise here, perhaps, to those who know the story, but
when the cry sounds out, "His blood be upon us and upon our children,"
the terrible specter of anti-Semitism and Christ killer tumbles out. The
re-insertion of this dubious and offensive line in what appears to be the final
version of the film is troubling, to say the least. Is the film
anti-Semitic? Almost certainly, not by intention. But by inference
and implication? It could be so perceived. And herein lies the
challenge to Christians of every persuasion.
The curse and sin of anti-Semitism haunt the Church and
corrupts its message. Modern scholarship and ancient grace are both clear
and persuasive: for Christians in any way to hold the Jewish people liable
for the death of Jesus, or fail to embrace them as among the faithful children
of God, is to distort Scripture and add to the shame of prejudice and violence
perpetrated on "God's own people," often, it is sad to say, by the
followers of Jesus, a faithful Jew from Nazareth.
The film, "The Passion of the Christ," becomes
then – for better or worse – an opportunity for serious study and
reflection. This is particularly so for Christians, who shortly during
Holy Week will be hearing again the narratives of the passion in their Gospel
readings. How they are heard and interpreted will be far more important
then what anyone thinks about Mel Gibson's movie. An uncritical embrace of
the movie by Christian leaders may well come back to haunt them, and so will the
failure to vigorously challenge and correct the anti-Semitism that still haunts
the past and lurks in the shadows of the present.
MEL GIBSON’S THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
A
Roman Catholic View
By Fr. John T.
Pawlikowski
Church authorities, including Pope John Paul II, have
clearly acknowledged the sufferings that misinterpretations of the passion
narratives have caused the Jewish people over the centuries. In 1997, the pope
said that "erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament
regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability (for the crucifixion)
have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this
people."
The pope underscored the importance of this on the First
Sunday of Lent, 2000, when he asked forgiveness from the Jews for the hatred and
death they have experienced as a result of those teachings. A few months later,
he placed these words of apology in the Western Wall during his historic trip to
Jerusalem: "God of our Fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to
bring your name to the nations; we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those
who in the course of history have caused these (Jewish) children of yours to
suffer. Asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine
brotherhood with the people of the covenant."
It is in this spirit and with Pope John Paul II's
historical perspective on anti-Semitism, which he has termed sinful in his book,
Crossing the Threshold of Hope, that
we must approach any personal reading of the Gospel's passion narrative or
dramatizations of these sacred texts.
The first point we need to understand is that the Gospel
writers were not historians in the modern sense of the term.
Rather, they were interpreting Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection
from varying religious perspectives. Hence they felt free to utilize details
about Jesus' life and death in ways that would enhance their primary theological
perspectives. They were not especially concerned about what we would regard as
chronological or historical accuracy.
Second, while Christians consider the Gospels to be
divinely inspired, they also reflect the social and political circumstances of
their day. We must try to determine these circumstances if we are to attain an
authentically "literal" meaning of a text. Often, people who claim to
be giving the "literal" meaning of a New Testament text are simply
imposing their own uninformed interpretation on that text. That's why Catholic
tradition has always been hesitant about reading the Bible without commentaries.
The late Vincentian Father Bruce Vawter, who taught for
many years at
It is in this context that the Catholic and Jewish scholars
who examined the original script of Mel Gibson's projected film "The
Passion of Christ"---myself included---have found it seriously wanting.
The working script we reviewed, as well as the rough cuts
now being shown to select audiences, have as their major storyline a depiction
of a cruel and vengeful high priest Caiaphas leading a cabal of hateful Jews to
force a weak-kneed Pontius Pilate to put Jesus to death. In the end, they
blackmail him into doing their dirty deed. But from biblical and historical
scholarship we know that Pilate was a powerful tyrant who fully controlled the
political situation. No way could the Jews of Palestine have blackmailed him.
He, not the Jewish leaders, was primarily responsible for
Jesus' death. That is where the film is not in keeping with Vatican II and
Catholic teaching. Gibson also relies on extra-biblical materials from the
mystic Venerable Catherine Emmerich which are tinged with anti-Semitism.
Certainly films can present Jesus' suffering and death in a powerful way. But
they must remain faithful to the church's current understanding.
"The Passion of the Christ" does not. Gibson, in
fact, rejects those teachings as well as modern biblical scholarship and thus
stands outside of official Catholicism today.
Father John T. Pawlikowski, a Servite
priest, is director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program of the Cardinal
Joseph Bernardin Center at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.
A leading champion of Catholic-Jewish relations, he was one of nine
Jewish and Catholic scholars who reviewed an early script of the movie.
Most of the revisions they urged have not been implemented.
This article originally appeared in the Catholic