Mel Gibson's Movie and the Vatican
Throughout 2003, much of the world's media spread the suspicion that Mel Gibson's film The Passion of The Christ could be dangerous because it is "anti-Semitic" — a charge Gibson flatly denies.
Though anti-Semitism is obviously a matter of grave moral concern to the Catholic Church, the Holy See has offered no official comment on the dispute.
Privately, a number of Vatican officials say they have followed the polemics and are waiting for the issues to clarify, for the situation to "ripen" ("maturare," as they say in Italian). They pointed out that a film is not something a Pope can ordinarily get involved in, so no official statement should be expected — above all, since the film is not yet finalized.
So nothing has prompted the Holy See to issue a clear public instruction — not the anti-Semitism charge; not Gibson's passionate (albeit traditional) Catholic faith; not the (allegedly) illegal action taken by a subcommittee of the US bishops' conference in the spring of 2002 to obtain an early copy of the film's script; not even the claim that Gibson is distorting Scripture and doctrine in his film.
The Holy See is waiting for all the facts to emerge.
The dispute began, arguably, with a March 9, 2003, New York Times Magazine article by Christopher Noxon describing Gibson's religious belief as "a strain of Catholicism" that is "rooted in the Council of Trent" and is now practiced only by "conspiracy-minded Catholics." The article said Gibson's father (Hutton), is a Holocaust denier, hinted that Mel could share his father's views, and surmised that Mel's new movie would be "a big-budget dramatization of key points of traditionalist theology." The battle over the film was underway.
This New York Times Magazine article was soon followed by the creation of an interfaith subcommittee, organized by Dr. Eugene Fisher of the US bishops' conference (for the Catholic side) and Rabbi Eugene Korn of the Anti-Defamation League (for the Jewish side). This committee obtained an early draft of the movie's script (how the draft was obtained has never been made clear), then composed a damning report, judging the film, on the basis of the early script, in need of radical changes before being released for public viewing.
These events led to a media frenzy through the summer of 2003 and increased pressure for an authoritative Catholic statement. The report by the rump subcommittee of the bishops' conference appeared to place the Catholic Church in the US solidly behind the anti-Gibson onslaught. Was this so?
Under threat of suit, the leaders of the US bishops' conference apologized for the conference's involvement in what Gibson claimed was theft (federal law is supposed to protect draft film scripts from such theft) and distanced themselves from the group's report.
But individual members of the committee continued to broadcast their criticisms, fanning the flames of the anti-Gibson fury. By September, the attacks against The Passion of The Christ were being described as the most virulent ever carried out against an unfinished film in movie history.
Then, astonishingly — especially to those who observe the slow, cautious, layered decision-making processes of the Holy See — from Rome came two statements within five days of each other in the middle of September.
Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, a Colombian who is renowned for his courage in facing down his nation's drug cartel leaders and who now heads the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy, and Archbishop John Foley, an American who heads the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, issued ringing endorsements of the film. Was the Holy See finally taking a position? Many thought so.
But then a third statement came, this time from Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews. Days after the praise from Castrillon Hoyos and Foley, Kasper was reassuring American Jewish officials that the two men did not represent the official Vatican position, but only their own personal opinions.
Some journalists openly wondered whether this seeming curial disagreement signified a pontificate in its twilight, lacking close day-to-day control over public pronouncements.
But the real point of the statements was that Castrillon Hoyos and Foley were making moral, doctrinal, esthetic judgments that had been forming for months. They spoke as they did because they had finally seen actual "cuts" of the film.
They were thus among the few in authority who could speak with first-hand knowledge, and that knowledge led them to sharply contradict much of the criticism spread by the relatively uninformed media, especially in the US.
Kasper's counter-statement was legally sound and politically careful. He said much the same thing in a separate communication with Inside the Vatican, reiterating the fundamental principle that the final version of the movie must be seen before it can be judged and citing the relevant passage (paragraph 4) from Nostra Aetate (1965) about the need to avoid any suggestion of "collective guilt" in recounting the Crucifixion story. He also said that the US bishops, not Rome, would be the proper body to review the film. (This is in keeping with his oft-stated theories about decentralization and delegation, that Rome should make fewer decisions and national bishops more — which his critics see as possibly leading to the moral chaos currently plaguing the Anglican communion.)
Three things are clear about Kasper's position:
(1) He claims no exact knowledge of what is in the movie. As he wrote to this magazine: "I did not have the opportunity to see the film, nor have I seen the script. Thus, I am unable to make any public statement."
(2) He did, however, respond to an appeal from the ADL's Rabbi Korn, in accord with the responsibilities of his Vatican office, and said that the views expressed by the other Vatican officials did not constitute an official position.
(3) Kasper's bottom line, as he told ITV, is: "The Passion of Christ, whoever was guilty for it at that time, can never be cause for hatred or prejudice against anybody; on the contrary, the Passion of Christ is a sign of love for everybody, also for Jews. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Church condemns every kind of anti-Semitism."
Father William Fulco, SJ, the scholar who translated The Passion of The Christ into Aramaic and Latin and who has worked on every stage of the production with Gibson, says the film deals with responsibility for the Crucifixion this way: "It is clear from the whole tenor of the production that those who are `guilty' (of Christ's death) are you and I, those of us who refuse to receive and return love."
Mel Comes to Rome
Rome's connections with The Passion began more than a year ago, in late 2002, when the Italian media first started publishing reports that Gibson was in Italy making arrangements to film a movie on the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus. (Gibson was unable to film the movie in Jerusalem because of the violence there, so he decided to film it in Italy.)
In the following months, Vatican reactions were varied and complex. They moved from initial astonishment (that the star of violent films like Lethal Weapon and Braveheart was making a film about Jesus Christ) and doubt (that such an actor could produce a serious, profound film about Jesus and his Passion), through seeking answers to questions (what was Gibson's purpose? what would his film be like?), to an eventual sense of confidence about the film (that he was making a serious attempt to depict the events in accordance with the accounts of Scripture, not mockingly or superficially, as one might fear from a Hollywood icon), and finally to the enthusiastic endorsements of Foley and Castrillon Hoyos and the cautious yellow light flashed by Kasper.
How could the Vatican not have been amazed, intrigued and frightened by the news that a major Hollywood star and director was in its neighborhood making a film on the sacrificial death of Jesus? From that death and resurrection came the Church, raised up to offer salvation to the world, through the sacraments and acts of charity and service. And reinterpreting those events has been at the heart of the centuries-long efforts to dismantle and secularize the Church.
Rome's officials, as leaders of the Church, are consecrated servants of the Gospel and the Crucifixion and all that implies. If the film is a great and revealing work of art, it might reaffirm their vocations and the Gospel itself; if it offers a false view of the Gospel and Christian doctrine, it could spread a false Gospel.
Thus, as 2003 drew to a close, Gibson's film came to be seen as one the Church could ignore only at her peril. Would its release open the Church to charges either of fostering anti-Semitism, or of rejecting essential truths?
If Gibson's movie is, as Castrillon Hoyos said it is, a great evangelical film, and Rome cannot publicly recognize that, it would appear to be playing the role of a Grand Inquisitor (in Dostoyevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor sees that Christ has returned, but arrests him because his message might "disturb" the people).
If, however, the movie falsely depicts the Gospel, as the USCCB subcommittee has claimed, and Rome fails to note the fact, it could be seen as tolerating and abetting cinematographic evil.
There is in Rome today a continuing sense of the moral imperative so often expounded by earlier pontificates. For example, Pope Pius XII gave this advice in 1945 to a group of American movie producers who sought out his counsel: "One wonders if leaders of the motion picture industry fully appreciate the vast power they wield to affect social life, life in the family or in larger civic groups. Eyes and ears are like broad avenues that lead directly to the soul of human beings, and they are opened wide, often without caution, by viewers of your films. What is it that enters from the screen into the inner recesses of the mind, where youth's fund of knowledge is growing and where norms and motives of conduct that will mold the developed character are being shaped and sharpened? . . . Oh, what an immense amount of good the motion pictures can bring about! That is why the evil spirit, always so active in the world, wants to pervert this instrument for his own impious purposes, and it is encouraging to know that your group is aware of the danger, and more and more conscious of its grave responsibility before society and God."
Whatever it says publicly, in private Rome sees Hollywood as the prime exporter and exploiter of violence and sex that moves the globe ever further from the divinely ordered, hope-filled world of the Gospel. Could Gibson produce a film of balance and beauty on Christ's Passion, given his background?
The Italian Press
The Italian press provided Rome its first, not always reliable, information about the approach Mel was taking. It recounted his colorful, flamboyant "table talk," including an occasional anti-Pope remark, confirming reports already circulating about his anti-Rome views. Il Giornale quoted him as saying the Vatican was "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and mentioned his father's theories that neither the current occupant of Peter's chair nor the three previous occupants were legitimate. (Almost immediately, priests who talked and worked with Mel reported that these stories were not entirely accurate, and that Gibson had actually spoken respectfully and admiringly of John Paul II.)
The two words often heard from those trying to explain what kind of film he might be making were: "sensationalist" and "Zeffirelli." "Sensationalist" referred to some of the films he had acted in; the name "Zeffirelli" introduced a standard by which his movie might be measured: Franco Zeffirelli's classic Jesus of Nazareth (Gesu di Nazareth) which came out in 1977. Many considered its sensitive, reverential treatment of Jesus a benchmark for Gibson's work.
Mel carried out his own public information campaign, speaking openly about why he was in Italy. "I chose Italy because so many people love it, and it's a great country to work in. It's also a big melting pot and has a huge and diverse talent pool." He selected the incredibly beautiful city of Matera in southern Italy to film the Crucifixion, describing it to Molly McClure: "Certain sections of the city are 2,000 years old: the architecture, the blocks of stone and the surrounding areas and rocky terrain added a vista and backdrop that we actually borrowed to create the backdrops for our lavish sets of Jerusalem. We relied heavily on the look that was there. In fact, the first time I saw it, I just went crazy because it was so perfect."
The set for Jerusalem was erected near Rome at the Cinecitta studios. There Gibson constructed a huge two-and-a-half acre scale replica of the Sacred City with its Temple, courtyard, Pilate's palace and praetorium, with columns, gigantic stone steps, roads and street scenes. (The Cinecitta studios are located beyond the ruins of the Roman Baths of Caracalla and the Catacombs on the edge of Rome.)
Not only did Gibson's intense enthusiasm and commitment to historical accuracy win favor; almost everything he said about the film sounded unlike any religious remarks ever quoted from a Hollywood director. Soon priest and seminarian visitors, notably the Legionaries of Christ, were describing a man who spoke and acted like an evangelist. They described him as a devout Catholic who lived his faith, was committed to the truth of the Gospel and the divinity of Christ, a passionate artist idealistically striving for perfection. They also reported that the actor playing Jesus, James Caviezel, was a man of similar mind and faith. They found the atmosphere on the set full of seriousness and respect, with reverence for the subject matter of the Gospel. They told of regular Masses (in Latin), communion and confession for Catholics in the group who wanted them.
CNS interviewed Rosminian Father Jean-Marie Charles-Roux, one of the priests who celebrated Mass for Gibson and his film crew. The priest humorously referred to the actor-director as "the bishop" — the one who made the decisions to have the Mass celebrated and where to celebrate it. He described Gibson and his crew as "very holy, devout and heroic — they have launched themselves into this adventure not knowing if it will pay off" (because, so far, no major distributor has wanted to market a film in Aramaic and Latin without subtitles).
Maia Morgenstern, daughter of a Holocaust survivor, who plays Mary in the movie, said priests often visited the set and Gibson attended Mass regularly. But she never felt the Catholic presence was intrusive. It was "discreet," she said.
One thing Gibson wanted to avoid was making "a cheesy Hollywood epic." The way he would do this was by carefully composing each individual frame. He and his cinematographer, Caleb Deschanel, conceived of modeling the shots on the paintings of Caravaggio. After reviewing initial frames, a delighted Gibson shouted: "It's a moving Caravaggio!"
Father Fulco, observing everything very closely, explained to reporters that the film's violence was muted by "the tender relationships between the characters, especially between Jesus and Mary."
"The brutality, which is historically real, is broken up with a sense of hope and strength," he said. "The film reflects St. Paul's teaching that 'if we die with Christ, we will rise with Christ.' I think the film makes it clear that our own life and sufferings are being embraced and redeemed."
Ironically, at the same time that people in the Vatican became united in the conviction that all judgments must wait until the movie was ready for viewing, the American bishops' interfaith group in Washington was announcing its negative judgment based on the illegally obtained early script of the movie. The 18-page report of these professors had the effect of tossing gasoline on a smoldering debate.
An article by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput circulated in Rome in late May and early June. Chaput reasserted the rock-bottom principle of fair play: "I find it . . . disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released . . . If he has produced a good film, a film of beauty and power and faith, then it deserves a chance to succeed without being cut to pieces before it even opens . . . We'll get a chance to love or criticize The Passion soon enough. In the meantime, between a decent man and his critics, I'll choose the decent man every time — until the evidence shows otherwise."
In July the Congregation for the Causes of Saints took a routine action that seemed to put the Vatican, and perhaps John Paul II, at odds with some American academics who had condemned Gibson for using the ideas of mystics who weren't even listed among the saints of the Church.
On July 7, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, with the Pope present, read a decree recognizing a miracle attributed to Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a mystic and stigmatist who died in 1824. This will lead to her beatification. She suffered from crippling illness most of her life and John Paul has found her holiness inspiring.
Gibson had read accounts of Emmerich's visions and been impressed by their vividness. His critics claim that she wrongly influenced his film, and that her visions made it unhistorical and anti-Semitic. (The Congregation did not consider Emmerich's writings on Christ's Passion in its decision on beatification because the actual writer was a German poet who put down what he remembered from long conversations with the nun. Those making the decision felt it was impossible to determine what was Emmerich's and what was the poet's, so those writings were set aside in reaching their conclusion.)
The Three Statements
In August, Archbishop John Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, was in a meeting in Washington where he saw a brief preview, less than 15 minutes, of scenes from The Passion. At the same time he talked cordially with Mel himself. He returned to Rome, and a few weeks later told reporters he found the scenes he had viewed "impressive." He said he would like to have seen more, but from what he did see, he was convinced this was a "meditation on the Passion" by a man well-versed in the Gospel accounts of what Jesus underwent and who wanted to report as accurately as possible what was in the Gospels.
In his talk with Gibson, Foley found him in accord with the Church's teaching on who killed Jesus, namely, "We are all responsible for the death of Jesus." Gibson told him he does not hold the Jews collectively responsible for the Crucifixion, as some had charged. Foley directly confronted a key complaint of the USCCB's professors — that The Passion distorts Scripture — when he said all the material in the film he saw comes directly from the Gospel accounts, that there is nothing in the film that doesn't come from them. "So, if they're critical of the film, they would be critical of the Gospel," Foley said.
Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos spoke after he watched a more extensive showing at the Legionaries of Christ seminary in Rome. The cardinal told Inside the Vatican that the film "is a triumph of art and faith. It will be a tool for explaining the person and message of Christ."
As to its faithfulness to the Gospels, he said Gibson "complemented the Gospel narrative with the insights and reflections made by many saints and mystics through the centuries. Mel Gibson not only follows the narrative of the Gospels . . . his artistic choices make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels as understood by the Church."
Asked directly about The Passion and anti-Semitism, the cardinal replied: "Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort . . . It captures the subtleties and horror of sin, as well as the gentle power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations against one group. This film expresses the exact opposite, that learning from the example of Christ, there should never be any violence against any other human being."
For Castrillon Hoyos, "The Passion is a rare movie of suffering, love and redemption, one of the finest religious movies ever made, and in complete accord with Catholic teaching. In my opinion, one of the great achievements of this film is to have shown so effectively both the horror of sin and selfishness, and the redeeming power of love. Seeing this film provokes love and compassion. It makes the viewer want to love more, to forgive, to be good and strong no matter what, just as Christ did even in the face of such terrible suffering. The viewer is drawn into a powerful experience of God's strong yet gentle love, of his overflowing mercy. It is my belief that if we could understand what Jesus Christ did for us and we could follow his example of love and forgiveness, there would not be hatred or violence in the world. This film will help to make that possible." His praise is unqualified: "I am confident that it will change for the better everyone who sees it, both Christians and non-Christians alike. It will bring people closer to God and closer to one another."
As soon as the statements of Castrillon Hoyos and Foley were reported, Abraham Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Rabbi Eugene Korn, ADL interfaith leader, got in touch with Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, the US bishops' top man in interfaith work. The ADL wanted Kasper and the Church authorities in the US to investigate the film's supposed anti-Semitism. Before seeing the film, Korn had charged that it threatened to spread anti-Semitism, and after he viewed the preview film in August, he repeated his charge.
Kasper's consistent position, as already noted, has been that no one should judge the movie until it is finished, that no one should deal with Christ's Crucifixion to encourage anti-Semitism, and to this he added that the USCCB should review the film, if they decide a review is appropriate. (Since it was the USCCB-ADL subcommittee that violated the prime principle of waiting for the movie to be completed, how they would be qualified to review the film in an impartial way is unclear.)
As for the ADL, it has come close to saying that any kind of dramatization of the Crucifixion is potentially anti-Semitic. This seems to give the Church two unappealing options: to choose to avoid retelling the story of the Crucifixion, or to contest an ADL viewpoint that has all the earmarks of a radically anti-Christian attitude.
At the same time Kasper was denying that Foley and Castrillon Hoyos expressed an official Vatican position, Foxman was explicitly labeling Gibson an anti-Semite. His statement was reported in the September 19 issue of the New York-based Jewish Weekly, where he said that Gibson's own words "paint the portrait of an anti-Semite." The paper claimed no mainstream Christian or Jewish leader had, until then, directly charged Gibson with being an anti-Semite. Supposedly, the previous attacks were limited to calling the movie a dangerous, potentially deadly film that might spread the evil of anti-Semitism around the world to the harm of Jews and in contradiction of Catholic teaching since Vatican II.
Castrillon Hoyos spoke to the press in Rome on September 14. Concerning Catholic teaching and Mel Gibson he said: "Mr. Gibson has achieved something truly extraordinary . . . I would like all our Catholic priests throughout the world to see this film. I hope all Christians will be able to see it, and all people everywhere." The statement could hardly have been clearer. But just as people were wondering what effect the announcement would have on the overall war of words, Kasper tossed out what amounted to a veto.
What does it mean?
What does Kasper's rejection of Castrillon Hoyos' and Foley's comments amount to? Irony, in the first instance. Kasper has been encouraging Vatican officials to speak out and argue different points of view. But when two speak out on a vital issue, he dismisses the assertions as personal opinions.
He is certainly on strong ground in saying official Vatican statements have to come from the Pope, or one delegated by him to make the statement. He also is legitimately claiming for his office the prime responsibility to speak on the Gibson movie. But his view that the US bishops, not Rome, should judge the film, is less persuasive. Is this an individual cardinal laying down a policy for the Vatican — that national bishops' conferences should be making more decisions touching on controversies in their countries?
Foley and Castrillon Hoyos did not simply review the movie; they did not confine themselves to expressing their appreciation for it; they said it was faithful to Scripture and to Catholic teachings. They affirmed the movie's accurate use of Gospel texts and went further to find an essential oneness between the film and the Gospel, and on this basis, dismissed the charge that it is anti-Semitic.
Kasper did not question these findings. He said he could not comment on specifics because he had not seen the movie. He seems to be finding fault with the timing of the statements; the two men decided to comment when he felt no one in the Vatican should be commenting.
In a practical sense, what Foley and Castrillon Hoyos did was sum up American and Vatican views after actually seeing previews of The Passion of The Christ. They powerfully correct the report of the professors used by the USCCB and ADL. In the Vatican world of deliberation and delegation, their statements do not amount to an official endorsement from John Paul II, but they have a moral power. If the debate on the movie doesn't end with its release in February of 2003, they have stated the essential points on which the film will have to be judged.
Kasper's letter to the ADL certainly helps to keep the Catholic-Jewish dialogue on an even keel, but at the same time it does not touch on the crucial question: whether the opposition to The Passion of The Christ is really an opposition to certain fundamental truths of the New Testament itself.
Kasper's Letter to Inside the Vatican
As we are informed, the film of Mel Gibson The Passion is still under production. I did not have the opportunity to see the film nor have I seen the script. Thus I am unable to make any public comment. When the film will be released it is — if necessary — upon the US Bishops' Conference to make a public statement.
Important is the statement of Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, 4: "Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. John 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion."
Later on Nostra Aetate states: "The Church always held and continues to hold that Christ out of infinite love freely underwent suffering and death because of the sins of all men, so that all might attain salvation. It is the duty of the Church, therefore, in her preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's universal love and source of all grace."
Thus, independently of having seen the film and without giving any judgment on it, one can say: The passion of Christ, whoever was guilty for it at that time, can never be a cause for hatred or prejudice against anybody; on the contrary, the passion of Christ is a sign of love for everybody, also for the Jews. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Church condemns every kind of anti-Semitism.
Sincerely,
Walter Card. Kasper
This item 5991 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
