|
Historically, providentially, it happened to be Jews and Romans who were
involved with the death of Jesus, but in reference to the various human
reactions exhibited by individuals and the mob it could have been any group.
Can all Black people be judged by what was done to Reginald Denny-the White
truck driver who was wrenched out of his truck and brutally beaten in the
riots following the acquittal of the police who attacked Rodney King in Los
Angeles some years ago? Absolutely not! Could the story of Rodney King be
honestly told while omitting that troubling episode? Absolutely not! We
cannot arbitrarily remove what we don't like from the record book and still
claim to be honest people.
That this story of Jesus, in and of itself a representation of a
historical event, was in subsequent centuries manipulated to persecute Jews
is a tragic fact that must always be acknowledged. That acknowledgement
having been made, however, one must still tell the story in complete
fidelity to what happened to a man named Jesus in Jerusalem some 2000 years
ago. This entire story, in the Bible and in the film, is about an event that
involved Jews and Romans. Protagonists and antagonists, heroes and villains
are only drawn from these two groups. Within the parameters established by
the Gospels, which are his guiding texts, Gibson has presented a compelling
and fair portrait of the complex elements and characters that make up this
story.
By now you have discerned that I don't agree with the harsh negative
criticisms of Gibson's movie. I hope I have at least exposed a few fatal
weaknesses in some of their arguments. One of the things that strike me
about the critics is that many who are not Christian do not seem to
understand that for the sincere believer, the principal guilty party is the
believer him or herself! When I asked my students immediately after the
movie about anti-Semitism in the film, almost unanimously they responded by
saying that this particular presentation of the movie made them more aware
of their own responsibility for Christ's Passion! I wish I could take credit
for that insight, but they got that a long time ago. This movie didn't make
me want to go out and avenge Christ's death, rather it made me want to go
within myself and examine my conscience and re-commit my life to him who
loved me so much that he endured THAT for me!
Another thing that strikes me is that among some Christians who are
critical of the movie there is an implication that Mel just went over the
top with all of the gore. Perhaps he should have muted the violence so that,
to paraphrase the words of the USCCB, he might not risk muting the teaching
of Christ. Maybe what is really being muted by the movie's critics is the
horror of sin? Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, hit the nail
on the head when he wrote to his flock on February 29 in The Catholic New
World, "The physical violence [in The Passion], however, is a metaphor for
the spiritual violence which is sin itself. It is inevitably shocking to see
the Son of God making himself sin for our sake." In making reference to
Gibson's portrayal of Satan--a brilliant, antiphonal complement to the
appearance of Satan in the canonical scriptures, which captures the satanic
defilement of the good, the unnatural debasement of creation and the
corruption of youth--His Eminence calls to our attention Jesus, struggle to
accomplish his appointed task. This struggle of Jesus, so masterfully
portrayed here, should encourage us in our daily struggle for authentic
holiness.
Article Pages
[ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ]
|
|
