|
|
|
Media Watch
ADL Letter to The Weekly Standard
Note: This letter appeared in the September 15, 2003 issue of The Weekly Standard.
|
Letters to the Editor
The Weekly Standard
To the Editor:
No matter how much Michael Novak tries to retrofit "The Passion" into the salutary teachings of Vatican II, normative Catholic teaching, and what Catholic theological authorities in America think, it doesn't wash ("Passion Play" Aug. 25). Not even Mel Gibson himself--a known repudiator of the teachings of Vatican II--makes this claim. After viewing the film, I asked Gibson publicly about the movie's conflict with Nostra Aetate, papal statements, and the U.S. Catholic Bishops guidelines for the presentation of passion narratives. He responded, "There is a lot of revisionism going on."
I was among the group of nine Jewish and Catholic experts who reviewed an early screenplay not materially different from the version of the film I saw regarding its depiction of Jews. The Catholic theologians found the script "to be without regard for Catholic principles of biblical interpretation" and that it "violates magisterial Catholic documents." One question is relevant: If "The Passion" is consistent with the Nicene creed and the principles of Vatican II, why has Gibson not responded to their concerns and refused to allow them to view the film?"
Contrary to Mr. Novak's wishes, the film does not communicate that Jesus died for the sins of all. A central motif that is graphically repeated throughout the film is that the Jewish religious authorities and the Jewish mob (i.e. all those Jews who are not proto-Christians) force the decision of crucifixion on an unwilling Pilate. One prominent interfaith expert who viewed the film said that its mob scene is worse than the one in the infamous Oberammergau play. New Testament experts know this message of the film to be both historical fantasy and bad theology.
Mr. Novak correctly states that "God cannot be unfaithful to his promises" and "Jews remain vessel's first love." This truth has been repeated many times by Pope John Paul II. Yet the film implies precisely the opposite. One final scene depicts the destruction of the Temple (i.e. the representation of Judaism) as a punishment for Jewish guilt in killing Jesus, intimating the old supersessionist and contempt theologies repudiated by responsible churches around the world.
Yes, as Mr. Novak claims, Mel Gibson did not set out to make an academic documentary. Had he done so, he would have consulted experts in the field. However, Gibson is now promoting the film as "the truth" and deceiving an unsuspecting public into thinking his film has historical credibility. Its flaws, from the wrong language, to incorrect dating of biblical quotes, to its reliance on the mystical visions of 19th century anti-Semitic nuns, are glaring and substantively color the film's message.
Finally, it is not true that the film "is not dangerous for Jews." Anti-Semitism is flourishing in Europe and the Middle East. The anti-Semites there will love this film. In America Jewish organizations and the Christian critics of the film have already been flooded with viciously anti-Semitic emails.
Those ignorant of the tortured history and problematic theologies of passion narratives may see Gibson's movie as innocuous. Such a blissfully naïve assessment plays havoc with both Jewish welfare and intellectual honesty.
| |
Sincerely,
Rabbi Eugene Korn
Director, Interfaith Affairs
Anti-Defamation League
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ADL Resources |
Media Watch
ADL monitors electronic and print media reports about the Middle East |
|
