"The Passion" (Mel Gibson)

[Symphony]

Just heard on Matt Drudge Radio program last night, Gibson having trouble finding distribution in U.S., so, at least according to Drudge, Gibson looking for vendors in Europe...

Drudge mentioned this new movie, "Kill Bill" (?)--the most violent movie ever made??  This premier weekend it grossed $ 22m.

So, here people easily go and watch that sort of movie, but no one wants to distribute a depiction of the final hours of our LOrd, and what was done to Him...


Human nature is its own indictment...
   

[Corpus]

I don't recall the entertainment industry responding much to Christians when The Last Temptation of Christ was released. Mind you that those refusing to show The Passion are doing so on PRINCIPLE.

I would laugh, but the hypocrisy and flat-out lieing stirs passions of my own.

[Tibby]

Drudge mentioned this new movie, "Kill Bill" (?)--the most violent movie ever made??  This premier weekend it grossed $ 22m.

The Village voice is the group that first gave Kill Bill the title the most violent movie America ever made. Glad to see we are basing information on movies we’ve never seen on reliable, balanced news source, uh?  

[Symphony]

Yes, Tibby, saying that movie is the most violent ever made is certainly one's matter of opinion.

I don't know what movie has that distinction, now.  

I do remember of an all-star movie in the late 60s, with that distinction--Ernest Borgnine, William Holden... "The Wild Bunch" (??), reputed, up to that date, 1969 I think, to be the most violent ever made, designed to "shock".   But even that one might just be a matter of one's opinion.  Seems that Hitchcock one from years earlier was pretty gruesome "Psycho" ?  Never did see either--and don't plan to!!

What do you mean Corpus, by your principle statement, above?

Anyway, Tibby, that's what Matt Drudge reported, in passing.  So the Villiage Voice, huh.  Yep, I don't know.  Lots of movies are violent.  I'm not sure I want to get into a contest, then I'd have to be viewing all that stuff--like becoming a drunk to evangelize the drunks.  

In a way, I wonder if movies generally aren't just voyeurism, anyway--human beings watching other human beings...

[Corpus]

Symph,

It was sarcasm (one of my vices still needing work). Simply put that many theater owners are more afraid of offending PC sensibilities than showing the movie. Those opposed to The Last Temptation of Christ were accused of close-mindedness, 'boxing in' Jesus and essentially being unenlightened prudes who didn't appreciate Scorsese's artistry, and that film showed in most if not all major markets. Christians were supposed to just get over it. I'm not an advocate of the 'artistry' argument to begin with, but I find it interesting how those who vigorously supported "Temptation" don't seem as passionate about this film. It isn't so much that a film might be offensive as it is who's being offended. Christians are fair game in this regard.

[Symphony]

It isn't so much that a film might be offensive as it is who's being offended.

Hmmm, yes, this would seem to be the point.


Just glanced at a brief mention of the movie yesterday, in a recent copy of Newsweek magazine(I think this week's).  It was consistent with your conclusion there, Corpus.  They aren't giving it any more light than they absolutely have to, apparently.

[Symphony]

Hmmm.  'Seems a lady in Ohio is taking the initiative here.  This week's U.S. News magazine, November 17, p.8, Jennifer Giroux, mother of nine...

"Enough is enough," she says, "I'm glad conservatives are holding Hollywood accountable."

Giroux has started www.seethepassion.com and asked Washington's Creative Response Consepts, a conservative PR team, to design a political type effort to build demand for the movie, pending the hoped-for Ash Wednesday opening.

She says we can't trust the major media anymore.

I haven't checked out that website yet.

[Corpus]

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 8, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Several Vatican officials who attended a private screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" this past weekend in Rome came away impressed.

The following is an exclusive ZENIT interview with one of the viewers, Dominican Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation.

Father Di Noia taught theology in Washington, D.C., for 20 years, and served for seven years as the theologian for the U.S. bishops' conference before coming to work for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the doctrinal congregation a little over a year ago.

The film is scheduled for release in 2004.

Q: Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" has been a newsmaker for months -- well before its scheduled release. As one of the handful of people who have actually seen it, what is your overall impression of the film?

Father Di Noia: Seeing this film will be an intensely religious experience for many people. It was for me.

Stunning cinematography and consistently brilliant acting, combined with the director's profound spiritual insight into the theological meaning of the passion and death of Christ -- all contribute to a production of exquisite artistic and religious sensitivity.

Anyone seeing this film -- believer and unbeliever alike -- will be forced to confront the central mystery of Christ's passion, indeed of Christianity itself: If this is the remedy, what must the harm have been?

The Curé of Ars says somewhere that no one could have an idea or explain what Our Lord has suffered for us; to grasp this, we would have to know all the harm sin has caused him, and we won't know this until the hour of our death.

In a way that only great art can do, Mel Gibson's film helps us grasp something almost beyond our comprehension. At the outset, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the devil tempts Christ with the unavoidable question: How can anyone bear the sins of the whole world? It's too much. Christ nearly shrinks at the prospect, but then convincingly proceeds to do just that -- to take on, according to his Father's will, the sins of the whole world. It's astonishing really.

There is a powerful sense, sustained throughout the film, of the cosmic drama of which we are all a part. There is no possibility of neutrality here, and no one can remain simply an onlooker in these events. The stakes are very high indeed -- something that, apart from Christ himself, is most clearly intuited only by his mother Mary and by the ever-present devil.

Gradually the viewer joins the characters in a dawning realization about this as the action moves inexorably from the Mount of Olives to the Mount of Calvary.

Q: Is the film faithful to account of the passion of Christ in the New Testament?

Father Di Noia: Remember, there are four accounts of the passion of Christ in the New Testament, concerned chiefly to present the religious meaning of these events.

In "The Death of the Messiah" -- probably the most complete and most balanced study of the Passion narratives ever written -- Father Raymond Brown demonstrated that, while there are some differences among them, they are in substantial agreement overall.

Mel Gibson's film is not a documentary but a work of artistic imagination. He incorporates elements from the Passion narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but remains faithful to the fundamental structure common to all four accounts. Within the limits possible in an imaginative reconstruction of the passion of Christ, Gibson's film is entirely faithful to the New Testament.

Q: What struck you most about the film?

Father Di Noia: You want the simple answer? Jim Caviezel. Playing Christ has to be one of the hardest of all dramatic roles. I was very struck by the intensity of Caviezel's portrayal of Christ. This is not easy to pull off, without the appearance of an intrusive self-consciousness.

Caviezel -- and surely Gibson too -- understand that Jesus is the incarnate divine Son of God, who is nonetheless fully human. Thinking back on the film, I realize that Caviezel accomplishes this primarily through his gaze, even when he looks out at us and those surrounding him through his one uninjured eye.

Caviezel conveys, entirely convincingly and effectively, that Christ is enduring his passion and death willingly, in obedience to his Father, in order to satisfy for the disobedience of sin. We are witnessing what the Church would come to call Christ's "voluntary suffering."

Recall the words of St. Paul: "Just as through one man's disobedience all became sinners, so through one man's obedience, all shall become just" [see Romans 5:19]. And it's not just about obedience. It's mainly about love. Christ is enduring this out of love for his Father -- and for us. Dramatically, there is absolutely no doubt about this in Jim Caviezel's outstanding portrayal of Jesus in this film.

Q: There have been reports that the film is excessively violent. What did you think?

Father Di Noia: It's not so much violent as it is brutal. Christ is treated brutally, chiefly by the Roman soldiers. But there is no gratuitous violence. The artistic sensibility at work here is clearly more that of Grünwald and Caravaggio than that of Fra Angelico or Pinturrichio.

We are talking about a film, of course, but Gibson has clearly been influenced by the depiction of the sufferings of Christ in Western painting. The utter ruination of Christ's body -- graphically portrayed in this remarkable film -- must be set within this context of artistic depiction. What many artists merely suggest, Gibson wants to show us.

In a manner entirely consistent with the Christian theological tradition, Gibson dramatically presents to us the Incarnate Son who is able to bear what an ordinary person could not -- both in terms of physical and mental torment. In the end, the ruined body of Christ must be seen with the eyes of Isaiah the prophet who described the Suffering Servant as bruised beyond recognition.

The physical beauty of Jim Caviezel serves to accentuate the overall impact of the progressive disfigurement which Christ undergoes before our eyes -- with the terrible result that, like the Suffering Servant, "he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" [Isaiah 53:2]. It requires the eyes of faith to see that the disfigurement of Christ's body represents the spiritual disfigurement and disorder caused by sin.

Gibson's portrayal of the scourging of Christ -- from which many viewers may be tempted to turn their gaze -- presents graphically what St. Paul says in Second Corinthians: "For our sake he [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" [5:21]. When you see the ruined body of Christ in this film, you know what it means "to be sin."

Q: Over the years, many directors have tried their hand at films about Jesus, or the passion. Does Mel Gibson's film that strike you as being particularly original?

Father Di Noia: I am not a film critic. Critics will have to judge Gibson's film in comparison with other great depictions of Christ's life and passion, such as Pasolini's and Zeffirelli's. Like these other filmmakers, Mel Gibson brings his own unique artistic sensibility to the subject matter, and in that sense his film is entirely original.

Certainly, "The Passion of the Christ" is much more intensely focused on the suffering and death of Christ than most other films in this genre. But, as an initial reaction, three things about Gibson's film strike me as being quite distinctive.

One is the portrayal of the devil, hovering in the background, and sometimes in the foreground, as a constant, eerily menacing presence. I can't think of another film that has done this with such dramatic effectiveness.

Another thing is Christ's solitude: Somehow, though surrounded by crowds of people, the film shows that Jesus is really alone in enduring this terrible suffering.

Finally, there is the depiction of the Last Supper by means of a series of flashbacks interwoven with the action of the film. Lying on the blood-drenched stone pavement after the scourging, Christ eyes the blood-spattered feet of one of the soldiers, and the film flashes back, significantly, to the washing of his disciples' feet at the Last Supper.

Similar flashbacks throughout the rest of the passion and crucifixion bring us to the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup: The audience, through Christ's eyes, witnesses him saying "This is my body" and "This is my blood." The sacrificial, and thus eucharistic, meaning of Calvary is depicted through these haunting flashbacks.

[Corpus]

(continued...)

Q: Does "The Passion" blame anyone for what happened to Christ?

Father Di Noia: That's a very interesting, and very difficult question. Suppose you pose it to someone who was unfamiliar with the Gospel passion narratives until seeing this film.

"Who is to blame for what happened to Jesus?" you ask. The other person pauses for a moment to think about this, and then responds: "Well, they all are, aren't they?" This answer seems exactly right to me.

Looking at "The Passion" strictly from a dramatic point of view, what happens in the film is that each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus' fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; Peter denies knowing him; Herod toys with him; Pilate allows him to be condemned; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action.

No one person and group of persons acting independently of the others is to blame: They all are.

Q: Are you saying that no one in particular is to blame for Christ's passion and death?

Father Di Noia: Well, I guess I am saying that -- certainly in a dramatic sense. But from a theological point of view, too, Mel Gibson has depicted in a very effective way this crucial element in the Christian understanding of the passion and death of Christ.

The narrative recounts how the sins of all these people conspire to bring about the passion and death of Christ, and thereby suggests the fundamental truth that we are all to blame. Their sins and our sins bring Christ to the cross, and he bears them willingly.

That is why it is always a serious misreading of the Passion stories in the Gospel either to try to assign blame to one character or group in the story, or, more fatefully, to try to exempt oneself from blame. The trouble with this last move is that, if I am not one of the blameworthy, then how can I be among those who share in the benefits of the cross?

A line from a Christmas carol comes to mind: "As far as the curse extends, so far does his mercy flow." We must acknowledge that our sins are among those Christ bore, in order to be included in his prayer, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." We very much want not to be left out of this prayer.

The Christian reader is summoned to find his or her place within this drama of redemption. This is clear in the solemn public reading of the Passion narratives during the Catholic liturgies of Holy Week, when the congregation takes the part of the crowd that shouts such things as "Crucify him."

In a paradoxical way, the liturgy helps us to understand these otherwise horrendous outcries as prayer. Naturally, we don't literally "want" Christ to suffer crucifixion, but we do want to be saved from our sins. In the perspective of faith, even the chilling "Let his blood be upon us and on our children" must be understood not as a curse but as a prayer.

Precisely what we want -- and what even the crowd gathered before Pilate unknowingly wanted -- is that, as the Book of Revelation puts it, we be "washed in the Blood of the Lamb."

Q: There has been a lot of controversy about the film's alleged anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. Can you tell ZENIT what you think about this?

Father Di Noia: Speaking as a Catholic theologian, I would be bound to condemn anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in any recounting of the passion and death of Christ -- and not just because of the terrible harm that has been done to Jewish people on these grounds, but also because, as I have already suggested, this represents a profound misreading of the passion narratives.

But let me answer your question plainly: There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson's film.

It is regrettable that people who had not seen the film, but only reviewed early versions of the script, gave rise to the charge that "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-Semitic. I am convinced that once the film is released and people get a chance to see it, the charge of anti-Semitism will simply evaporate.

The film neither exaggerates nor downplays the role of Jewish authorities and legal proceedings in the condemnation of Jesus. But precisely because it presents a comprehensive account of what might be called the "calculus of blame" in the passion and death of Christ, the film would be more likely to quell anti-Semitism in its audiences than to excite it.

From a theological perspective, what is even more important is that the film conveys something that the evangelists and the Church have always seen clearly: What Christ experiences in the journey from Gethsemane to Golgotha, and beyond, would be completely unintelligible apart from God's covenant with Israel.

The conceptual framework is set almost entirely by the history and literature, the prophets and heroes, the stories and legends, the symbols, rites, and observances, and ultimately the entire culture of Judaism.

It is this framework, most fundamentally, that renders intelligible and expressible the natural need for satisfaction and redemption in the face of human sin and the loving determination on God's part to fill this need.

Far from inciting anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism, Gibson's film will compel his audiences to deepen their understanding of this indispensable context of the passion and death of the Jesus of Nazareth, the Suffering Servant.

Q: What will the film's impact be?

Father Di Noia: You know that throughout Christian history, the faithful have been encouraged to meditate on the passion of Christ. The spirituality of every great saint -- the names of St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, come immediately to mind -- has been marked by a devotion to the passion of Christ.

Why was this? Because it was recognized that there was no surer way to summon from the human heart the love that even begins adequately to respond to the love of God who gave his Son for our sake.

I think that Mel Gibson's film will move people to this kind of love. Your heart would have to be made of stone for it to remain unmoved by this extraordinary film and by the unfathomable depth of divine love it endeavors to bring to life on the screen.
ZE03120835

[JudgeNot]

We just saw a short preview in church, yesterday.  It looks like it is going to be quite powerful.  We (my church) have reserved an entire theatre to watch a full length preview on February 23rd.  (The movie officially begins on Feb. 25th.)  The preview will have “in-depth” interviews of Mel Gibson and James Caviezel (the actor who portrays Christ).  The interviews are by Lee Strobel (how cool is that?).  There will also be numerous cuts from the movie.
Our pastor, having talked with many others who have previewed the actual film, is suggesting that we all make ‘dates’ to take non-believers and ‘fence-walkers’ as guests to see the movie.
The Pope’s critique: “It is as it was.”
I am getting pretty excited about it – the opportunity to use the movie to lead others to Christ is HUGE.
I’ve also been told to make sure to “take a hanky” – that even a big-ol’ guy like me will not be able to contain the tears.

FYI - it is reported the movie will have an "R" rating.

[tqpix]

That's sweet.  Don't forget to tell us what you think of it after you see it.

[JudgeNot]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36773

[Corpus]

This review is from David Horowitz (Frontpage Magazine)...


Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, which is about the last twelve hours of Christ's life is the object of campaign villification and book burning by a committee of Christians and Jews who want to shut it down before it is shown, or edit it to their own politically (or religiously) correct standards. Paula Fredriksen is a spokesman for this committee. The New Republic has shamed itself by printing her ill-informed and bigoted attack on the film.

Unlike Fredriksen and others who want to destroy film before they have seen it, I have. It is not an attempt to portray the historical Jesus -- which is the subject of Fredriksen's entire screed -- nor could it be. By Fredriksen's own account there is no evidentiary basis for such a portrait and if anyone tried to create one it would be eviscerated by the same Savanarolas, precisely because no one can know what the truth is.

Gibson's film is an artistic vision and must be judged that way. Like others who have seen the film, I am sworn to keep details confidential so that it gets its chance when the distributors present it to the viewing public next Easter. However, I will say this: It is an awesome artifact, an overpowering work. I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is extremely painful to watch and yet the violence is never gratuitous. You never feel like you want to take your eyes off the screen. It is a wracking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience as art can get.

It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Frederiksen whose only familiarity with Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. But yes, the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they, since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?).

But all this is to miss the point. This is a Christian parable. The cruelty, intolerance and lack of compassion of human beings is limitless -- and we who have lived through the Twentieth Century know this all too well. The moral of this Christian story -- of Mel Gibson's film -- is that we all killed Jesus -- Jew and Gentile alike -- and tortured him, and we do so every day. But if you believe the vision that Gibson has rendered so searingly and so well, Jesus forgives us for that very act. Whosoever will give up cruelty and love his brother will enter paradise. That is the message that Gibson has framed in his extraordinary work. The effort to shut down his film before it opens is just another station of the cross.

[The Crusader]

This review is from David Horowitz (Frontpage Magazine)...


Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, which is about the last twelve hours of Christ's life is the object of campaign villification and book burning by a committee of Christians and Jews who want to shut it down before it is shown, or edit it to their own politically (or religiously) correct standards. Paula Fredriksen is a spokesman for this committee. The New Republic has shamed itself by printing her ill-informed and bigoted attack on the film.

Unlike Fredriksen and others who want to destroy film before they have seen it, I have. It is not an attempt to portray the historical Jesus -- which is the subject of Fredriksen's entire screed -- nor could it be. By Fredriksen's own account there is no evidentiary basis for such a portrait and if anyone tried to create one it would be eviscerated by the same Savanarolas, precisely because no one can know what the truth is.

Gibson's film is an artistic vision and must be judged that way. Like others who have seen the film, I am sworn to keep details confidential so that it gets its chance when the distributors present it to the viewing public next Easter. However, I will say this: It is an awesome artifact, an overpowering work. I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is extremely painful to watch and yet the violence is never gratuitous. You never feel like you want to take your eyes off the screen. It is a wracking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience as art can get.

It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Frederiksen whose only familiarity with Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. But yes, the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they, since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?).

But all this is to miss the point. This is a Christian parable. The cruelty, intolerance and lack of compassion of human beings is limitless -- and we who have lived through the Twentieth Century know this all too well. The moral of this Christian story -- of Mel Gibson's film -- is that we all killed Jesus -- Jew and Gentile alike -- and tortured him, and we do so every day. But if you believe the vision that Gibson has rendered so searingly and so well, Jesus forgives us for that very act. Whosoever will give up cruelty and love his brother will enter paradise. That is the message that Gibson has framed in his extraordinary work. The effort to shut down his film before it opens is just another station of the cross.

Thanks Corpus, for the first time, I can say I will go see this movie.

Your friend and brother

The Crusader

<))><

[nChrist]

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

The below is a forwarded Email from my Aunt. Part one is supposed to be a review of The Passion by Paul Harvey. Part two is supposed to be a review and commentary by David Limbaugh. I'm only assuming this is correct, so take them for whatever they are worth. I only go to movies about once every 2 or 3 years, but I will try to see this one.
__________________________________

Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Fw: Mel Gibson


Full-Name: Shirley Sharpe

Let's all pray for the influence of this film to
continue to change lives.
Trina

Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson

The majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Now Paul Harvey tells "The rest of the story" and David Limbaugh praises Gibson. Most people would wait and see a movie before giving the
reviews that have been issued by the reporters trying to tell all of us what to believe.

Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a
Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my
ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this
time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Dolorsa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree.
There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful,
sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify
themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and
thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to
tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's film-making masterpiece, "The Passion."

See Part Two for Commentary by David Limbaugh