An obstacle to ecumenism?
By Diogenes (articles ) | February 24, 2004 10:24 AM
From The Tablet:
The screening that made Gibson most anxious was at Fulco’s university in Los Angeles, where Jesuits watched it during a gathering at Loyola Marymount. Gibson explained to Boyer why he and Lauer were so nervous: “We’re Catholics, right? We’re scared of the Jesuits. Every good Catholic is.”
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($23,238 to go):
$80,000.00
$56,762.50
29%
71%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Feb. 24, 2004 10:33 PM ET USA
Too rich -- the enteric coated Tablet gets all flustered because Gibson kept showing it to "conservatives" (gasp) -- and they didn't even invite Cardinal Kasper (2nd gasp) instead the "Legionnaires of Christ" (queue dramatic organ music and tuba section) and Opus Dei (queue Wagner music). An added bonus was the USCCB "distancing" itself with a Bishop Wilton Gregory style silent film moment which you all remember from the Governor Keating silent film moment. I assume that the NYT disapprove
-
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Feb. 24, 2004 10:23 PM ET USA
Come on everyone, you can get back at The Tablet a little bit; I had an enormous amount of fun filling out their customer information so that I could get free access; when it asked how I learned about their publication, I mentioned the Opus Dei website. Unfortunately, there were no options to say daily communicant, weekly trips to the confessional and self flagellation as a form of recreation, but I did do my part for ecumenical dialogue amongst the downtrodden.
-
Posted by: John J Plick -
Feb. 24, 2004 4:33 PM ET USA
“is stumbling into a cinema near you.” “… or an unbiblical, gory depiction by a quirky traditionalist which could fuel anti-Semitism…” “The film is shot in the mostly dead languages” “Should Gibson be allowed to ignore modern scholarship for his own direct rendition?” “Gibson’s direct use of Scripture, unmediated by biblical scholarship…” “Mel returned to the faith of his father with the zeal of a reformed backslider.” from "The Tablet" No bias here...! JP
-
Posted by: John J Plick -
Feb. 24, 2004 3:23 PM ET USA
The spin on this article was incredible. Personally, use of intellect to fulfiill an agenda disgusts me. I intend to sift through the article word by word when I have more time. Until then, I would suggest that people in general ignore this stilted and revisionist analysis, go see the movie and judge for themselves.
-
Posted by: -
Feb. 24, 2004 1:05 PM ET USA
Don't recall "Son of all" being in the Bible. Which translation is that in? Don't recall it being defined in an Ecumenical council either, which is, by definition, inclusive.
-
Posted by: -
Feb. 24, 2004 11:36 AM ET USA
Gibson's comments have a certain quaintness about them -- they give rise, for once, to the valid charge that his sympathies are preconciliar. Catholics concerned about the depredation of the priesthood should be wary of the Jesuits, but I'm sure that's not what he meant. As I recall, one of the audience, in the question and answer period that followed, asked whether the film could be made "more inclusive" by referring to Christ as "the son of all." Gibson's reaction was not recorded.
