Intriguing. I have never heard ANYONE challenge the conventional "wisdom" that "What a man does when he's drunk is his true self", EVER.
It has basically become a taboo to even suggest otherwise. This is worth much more consideration. Do you have any references?
"Gibson has always struck me as a man who is wrestling with a great many demons as he struggles to transcend his origins while remaining faithful to his family and the faith they gave him."
And being a public figure, his sins and failings are for all to see thanks to media coverage--which is part of cost in being a Hollywood star.
The rest of us should be grateful that our failings will never (hopefully) reach the front page or the top of the hour news.
What a beautiful, beautiful post.
Mark, when you're on, you're really, really on. 
Mark, Thank you for the post. I pray that Mel finds his way home.
Deep!
Yes, Mark, that was an impressive post...
Well said as always, Mark. Your common sense is wonderfully refreshing amidst dozens of bitter and angry rants of people complaining about anybody who behaves less than perfectly, or use this moment of weakness to attack everything Mel has done in his life as being hypocritical and/or downright evil. Puhleeze.
Now, how long before Pace says something about how this proves that the Passion is 'anti-Christian'?
Mark. Me too. AWESOME post. Thank You.
I echo the sentiments. Very good post.
I really have to respect a man that says, "yep it's all true - I'm guilty as hell. I was stupid and I'm sorry."
As opposed to "I did not have sexual realtions with that woman."
Spot on, Mark. This is one of the best posts you've made in a long time. I'm sure I am one of many who hopes that Gibson can make ample use of the graces he's sure to receive if he humbly asks for them.
Unfortunately, I think the Freudian-Calvinists of this country are the least of Mel's worries: this is the moment that Abraham Foxman and his ilk have been waiting for:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/...ges/
744684.html
1. Frail people often make great art. Comes with the personality. Much written about the eventful life of my musical hero Francis Albert Sinatra. Some of which may be true. Including his habit of translating his personal trauma into his music. Such as the classic 1957 LP Only The Lonely. Recorded shortly after his bustup with the comely Ms. Ava Gardner. Can hear the pain every note. Until the final song about the final drink at 2:45 A.M. and after downing said adult beverage exiting the tavern. Thus closing door on that period.
2. Do not forget that many in the Tinseltown salons will never ever forgive Mel for TPOTC. Not just the topic. But the movie's marketing- outside of normal corporate circles. As for Abe Foxman crawling out of the woodwork- yawn.
4. Many of you know about a recent incident involving Phillies pitcher Brett Myers. Who allegedly clocked his wife Kim on Boylston St. in Boston one recent Thursday night. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth round these parts. Until surprising voice of sanity- Phila. Daily News columnist and baseball maven Bill Conlin. Reporting that Phils' employee Dickie Noles on the case to mend these lives. Dickie who once had a fiery booze craving to go with his fastball. And clocked a Chicago police officer in another latenight skirmish. Now aids and counsels Phils' players on substance abuse and other issues. Conlin urged public to let this expert deal with the delicacies of mending two shattered lives in privacy. Seemed to have worked here. Might work with Mel.
4. Then again Mel did f---- up bigtime. He apologized in writing. On with the movie.
"I was corrected in this false and heretical belief years ago by my favorite priest in the world, Fr. Michael Sweeney, now president of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology. The reality is quite contrary. Sin is the mask. It is not what names us but what makes us anonymous. Sin, because of the fall, is normal. But sin is never "natural". It does not constitute who we are, it *destroys* who we are. It is when the human person takes his place as the redeemed creature God made him that we begin to truly see his face and know his name."
I agree with that completely. But something about this post rubs me the wrong way, in a sense that it seems to mirror Scientology's criticism of psychology, which is complete balloney. When you say: "It seems to me that we have a basic choice: to believe revelation or to believe Freud," I almost want to respond with your line: "Why not both/and?"
"We believe that the fall is identical with nature, and therefore believe that when you see a man in sin, you see him as he "really" is. Goodness is the mask, corruption is his nature."
Mark, you should do a post on "human nature," because frankly I find it impossible to decipher what you mean by it. The best I can figure out is that human nature is perfect and not marred by sin at all, yet also it's "normal" to sin because of the fall. When normal people use the phrase "human nature," they mean it as our tendency to sin. Do you mean it that way, or if it's improper to use the phrase that way? What phrase would you use instead?
PS: Please don't smear me as a Calvinist or pagan for asking the question. Thanks.
Wait a minute, does this mean Gussie Fink-Nottle really was dull and boring, and that the prize-giving was just a brief slip after all?
Yes, I believe that Gibson is a sinner in need of grace; yes, I do not presume to judge him and think that those gleefully pouncing on his fall as "proof" of the so-called "anti-Semitism" of TPOTC reveal more about themselves than about him; yes, I pray for Gibson's conversion and have hope for him that the love for Christ he displayed through TPOTC will cover a multitude of sins.
But, uhm, Mark? Can we not just admit that Mel harbors some anti-Semitic views that came tumbling out in a drunken tirade? I've had experience with people "under the influence" of various drugs and my experience is that the drugs tend to lower whatever natural inhibitions they may have had against bad behavior. That's why a perennial bit of advice to be careful about alcohol intake at parties and bars.
This isn't to say that Gibson should be *defined* by the anti-Semitism he espoused. It is only to say that it's more than a bit naive to now deny that it's there and that it may have influenced his worldview to some extent (the extent to which I'm happy to agree that we do not know).
I'm responding to Chris-2-4 in the first response to this post. I'm stepping into my clinical mode, so forgive me.
The answer to your question is that the "true self" is the self that is expressed when we have access to all of our faculties. If part of my brain is shut off because I am drunk, then I am capable of expressing parts of myself but not--literally--my whole self because a significant part of my brain is either impaired or not functioning.
How a person "really feels" is actually a complex interaction between various emotional impulses and their capacity for rational thought. When part of that process is offline, the thoughts and behaviors expressed are, by nature, more primitive, reactive, and emotional, but hardly more "real."
Incidentally, none of this excuses the behavior of the inebriated person, but it gives lie to the popular idea that the "true self" is expressed when a person is impaired by drugs, alcohol, or even intense emotion.
Greg
Mark's going a little too far here. I'm sure it's unintentional, but since he's been on this "natural vs. normal" kick for a few days, it looks like he's trying to shoehorn Mel Gibson's arrest into a place where it doesn't really fit.
I was raised to believe that what people say when they are plastered, or insanely angry, or deeply afraid, or otherwise stripped of their normal rational faculties is Who They Really Are.
I believe that to be true. In fact, I don't just believe it to be true; it is an incontrovertible fact, and if you deny it you are a brain moron.
Mark attempts to make a theological point where there is none to be made. It is true, as Mark has said, that it is not man's nature to be sinful. If that were the case, every drunk would be a mean, nasty drunk.
All that alcohol does is to remove the inhibitions that constrain our sins of the heart. It doesn't reveal a sinful nature; it reveals the sins that we have committed in our hearts, and makes us commit them in words or acts. Gibson's drunken outburst doesn't evidence a sinful nature, but it proves him to have sinned in his heart.
I'm not in a position to judge his apology. He doesn't owe me one. It is unfortunate, though, that the poster boy for Hollywood Catholics has revealed himself to be an anti-Semite. I would never expect him to be free from sin, but it would have been nice if he could have avoided committing the sin that his enemies (and ours!) would most like him to commit.
I was just so impressed to hear him admit he was wrong and sorry and not suffering from exhaustion, nervous exhaustion, a bad drug interaction or any of the myriad Hollywood excuses for bad behavior.
"All that alcohol does is to remove the inhibitions that constrain our sins of the heart. It doesn't reveal a sinful nature; it reveals the sins that we have committed in our hearts, and makes us commit them in words or acts. Gibson's drunken outburst doesn't evidence a sinful nature, but it proves him to have sinned in his heart."
I totally disagree with this, and lucky for me, so does the Church. Think about the requirements for a sin to be mortal. "Sufficient reflection" is one of them. God judges us LESS harshly, not MORE harshly, when we sin because we've lost control, whether we lost that control to fear, anger or plain old drunkenness. He knows that our truest self is the self we are when we're at our best. What we choose to do in THOSE moments is of far more weight spiritually than what we do when we're at our weakest.
My true self wants to glorify God. My true self desires to be a better person. But sometimes, I drink too much or someone threatens me, and I give in to the temptation to sin. I am a sinner, yes. This is normal, true of every person. But it is not natural. God did not create me or anyone else this way. It is we who have done it to ourselves by our own free will.
Great post, Mark.
K of C:
It must be quite illuminating to mere mortals and experienced counselors such as Greg Popchak to find out that they are, in your words, "brain morons." Thanks for your professional insights about "incontrovertable facts," K of C.
I'll also mention that I read your insightful and thoughtful post, Mark, right after I read Rod Dreher's post on the Crunchy blog that "there can be no doubt that Mel Gibson is a Jew-hater."
I know it's off topic, but if you're wondering why Mr. Crunchy and his theories deeply annoy so many people, there's a clue.
K the C in his 1:46 p.m. post, in his effort to critique Mark's excellent understanding of theological anthropology, falls into the Protestant confusion between sin and concupisence. Alcohol does not "reveal the sins we've committed in our hearts", but removes inhibition. Suppression of gut reactions that are in disconformity with what we really believe and think is an exercise of the virtue of temperance. Our emotional life is disintergrated with our intellectual and volitional life because we've lost the preternatural gift of "freedom from concupisence - the perfect integration of emotion with intellection and volition. Issues that are deeply buried in the unconscious and are unavailabe to the self in everyday conscious reflection have no moral import, although if there's psychopathology, one may need assistance to negotiate these unconscious elements for therapeutic reasons, not moral or spiritual reasons.
C.C.:
Mostly false and, where true, mostly irrelevant and, where relevant, probative of my point.
So what if God judges you "less" harshly because you made your sins of the heart public? It's still mortal sin. I advise you to confess all of your sins, because you are subject to judgment for all of them, not just the ones you committed while sober.
"Whaddaya want? I was DRUNK, Jesus!"
"Oh, my mistake. Enjoy Paradise!"
To the extent that alcohol impairs the ability to perceive the world properly or to make good judgments, sin is mitigated somewhat by drunkenness. But let's not lie to ourselves: that's not what happened here. Gibson didn't get drunk the other night and suddenly, apropos of nothing, cook up nasty slander about Jews. It was pre-formed in his mind. He was an anti-Semite, and the booze brought those private sins forward.
Whatever leniency Gibson (or any of us) might get for our drunken outbursts, we're all still going to be judged on the sins of the heart that we commit. I'm not that concerned about what Gibson did while drunk. I'm concerned about what he did in his heart while sober, as evidenced by his drunken rant.
So what? Great answer by Mark. But even so...so what? So what if Mel said it? So what if he meant it? If I take what he is alleged to have said at face value, I could easily insert the word Christianity, Church, or Religious Right and voila! I have heard it said by stone sober political and religious leaders all over our country. Remember, many of our more liberal brethren and sistren say the NT and the Church are a priori anti-Semitic, evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, and the cause of 98% of human suffering. If Mel's drunken tirade (with which I would disagree, and would be happy that he apologized as he did) is true, it would be no worse than what I have heard "respectable" leaders of the left say with straight faces about the historic Church. And unfortunately, that also includes some Jewish authors and thinkers. Perhaps we should rethink such sweeping statements in all cases, not just those dealing with drunk Catholics. Maybe I will get over it when I hear them apologize for what they say about the Church.
This discussion reminds me of a series of articles from Ann Landers recently where she answered questions about the *myth* that after surgery, people coming out of anaesthesia cannot tell a lie.
The point was brought home by a letter writer who talked about his surgery recovery where he talked about his wife and kids. He was 12 years old at the time.
So, yeah. Call me a brain moron.
Tom Haessler:
Dress Mark's excuses up in all the theology you like. Use twenty-dollar words like "concupisence." It's still bunk that no one on this blog would be defending if Gibson wasn't "one of us" and hadn't made TPOTC.
The fact is that Gibson wasn't acting on a gut reaction. He wasn't reflexively, uncontrollably responding to a stimulus with an outburst. He was revealing his fully-formed, sinful views about Jews. Surely it was imprudent for him to reveal his anti-Semitism, and to the extent that the liquor lowered his inhibitions, maybe he'll get a pass for some or all of his outburst. But that doesn't change the hateful sober thoughts that led were a cause in fact of this outburst. Dreher was right: Gibson is an anti-Semite.
Oh, and I was unaware that the Church has signed off on the Freudian understanding of the unconscious mind. That's news to me. Got a Catechism citation for that?
It's too much of a burden to be a Christian in today's world. It's enough merely to believe for one's self. The Ring is this burden. TPotC is too much Christian. 'Christianity' is the Ring that has to fall. The Word had to be transformed. Lynch was sent to teach us how to once again believe: to reverse the pornographisation of the modern mind and recover our love of mystery. His films must be taken as a whole, or not at all. They let us approach them as if they were a poor child in a manger. This is the first lesson that must be re-learned. Gibson displayed a particular philosophy, or attitude, when he (reportedly) said about MD: "I hate movies I can't understand."
Can anyone here say with a straight face that Gibson doesn't believe every word of what he said?
I've been intoxicated to various levels with various substances in my life, and under the influence of those chemicals I've said my share of things that, upon sober reflection, I never would have said. But never once did I say anything that I didn't feel in my heart.
Of course, Mel Gibson is different, because he made The Passion. That stuff about Jews was totally accidental. It was completely random that he said what, and was not possibly connected with his true, fully-formed beliefs. Any of us could have said that if we got drunk, right?
How's the Kool-Aid, guys?
... Gibson's frustration is the same as any other Christian's. It is: "God, where are you?! Why are you not helping us?"
And yet, how would we respond if God answered that He had been active in the fight all of these years; indeed that He had once again emptied Himself in the full revelation of his life? But, it's just that it happened in a place that we were not accustomed to looking, even in a place that we were taught that it was "evil" to look.
Under Mark's theory, how does one explain the silly, happy drunk who never says or does immoral things in a drunken etc. state?
Maybe alcohol, fear etc. takes away the inhibitions which prevent some from doing that which they would, were there not social sanctions.
Just thoughts.
+J.M.J+
If Gibson is anti-Semitic, then he must repent and do penance. The most important thing for us to do is to pray for him and his family. Perhaps our prayers can help him turn away from his besetting sins.
"Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ. For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Galatians 6:1-3
Don't think we can "instruct" Gibson, but we can pray that God sends someone to do so. Perhaps a priest loyal to the Holy Father, who may help bring Mel back into the fold as well?
In Jesu et Maria,
Great post, Mark.
The problem with K of C's approach is that if we really are what we sometimes think about, consider, feel urges to do, or actually do or say while inebriated, then we are all of us as loathsome as he thinks Mel Gibson is. We are not that, because we know and choose better than to be. Who can cast the first stone here- do we want to be judged by our secret thoughts and tempatations, even when we have not chosen to give them free reign?
Brian's comment is interesting because I think it actually points to where these demons come from in Mel Gibson's case- he grew up hearing them from his father, proabably over and over from infancy and they lie deeply imbedded in his brain. Not surprising that they came out while he was drunk, but not at all a reflection of what Mel truly believes either.
Again, Mark, an excellent post.
K the C:
For every person like you who insists that in vino, veritas, someone else will tell you from personal experience that either they themselves or someone they know has uttered outrageous things in an alcoholic rant that they do not, in their heart, truly believe.
You call it drinking the Kool Aid, and I would counter that lack of charity and hard-heartedness require forgiveness as well.
Or are you, in your absolute moral certainty, above the latter?
The problem with K of C's approach is that if we really are what we sometimes think about, consider, feel urges to do, or actually do or say while inebriated, then we are all of us as loathsome as he thinks Mel Gibson is.
False. You get Benedict XVI drunk as a skunk on home-grown weed and bathtub gin and he'll never, ever come out with an antisemetic rant. It's not in his heart.
Well, K of C, we don't actually know that to be true.
The point is, though, that even if he did, I wouldn't say that he "really" was an anti-Semite.
I'm sure that Benedict, like every mortal, has had illicit thoughts and desires and wishes- I wouldn't define him by those if they surfaced while he was drunk. Just the opposite.
Can anyone here say with a straight face that Gibson doesn't believe every word of what he said?
No, I can't, but it's not important. The issue is that he knows and says it is wrong, and if he contradicts his gut feelings because he knows they're wrong, than why should we act as though his apology means nothing?
For those who are implying that drunkenness makes one less culpable for sins committed while drunk:
That's only true if you weren't responsible for being drunk in the first place. If you accidentally overimbibed or if you unknowingly drank spiked punch, your responsibility for your actions while impaired would be mitigated. But if you purposefully became drunk, the culpability increases. The reason purposeful drunkenness is a sin is precisely because it impairs the ability to reason and can cause you to do things you might not otherwise do.
The problem with all this whitewashing of Gibson's remarks is that it destroys the idea that we have to take personal responsibility for our sins. If *The Alcohol Made Me Say Something I Do Not Believe* -- which is not too far removed from a child's *The Devil Made Me Do It* --then it erases the need to take responsibility for one's actions.
Much as I hope Gibson recovers from this, his apology was not "manly" because he did not take responsibility for what he said. He denied responsibility by saying that the alcohol caused him to say things he does not believe. It was just another form of CYA posturing.
Intriguing. I have never heard ANYONE challenge the conventional "wisdom" that "What a man does when he's drunk is his true self", EVER.
It has basically become a taboo to even suggest otherwise. This is worth much more consideration. Do you have any references?
Someone over at Reason's Hit and Run asked, "Shall I be the first one to mention that alcohol does not change your personality, but merely lowers your inhibitions," to which APL made what struck me as a fairly sage observation: "I used to think this, but I've come to realize that to a very great extent, our inhibitions ARE our personality."
Mia- you are contradicting your self. On the one hand, you say that alcohol "causes" you do things you wouldn't ordinarily do and it "impairs" your ability to reason.
Then you castigate Mel for claiming the alcohol "caused" him to do it.
Does that seem logical to you?
"Mia- you are contradicting your self. On the one hand, you say that alcohol "causes" you do things you wouldn't ordinarily do and it "impairs" your ability to reason.
Then you castigate Mel for claiming the alcohol "caused" him to do it.
Does that seem logical to you?"
It's not the alcohol per se that "causes" you to do anything since moderate drinking does not cause anti-Semitic tirades. It is the state of being drunk that can allow you to say or do things you might ordinarily refrain from saying or doing. I agree that alcohol isn't a truth serum but I also do not believe that drunkenness creates an entirely new value system utterly foreign to the drunk.
What Gibson should have apologized for is that in his drunken stupor he said and did things that he now deeply regrets and of which he is profoundly ashamed. He should have left out the part about how he does "not believe [what he said] to be true." That's the part of his statement that most people are having understandable trouble believing.
In any event, I think K of C is correct that many people here have been rationalizing away what Gibson said because they like TPOTC. Had the malefactor been Kevin Smith everyone would have said, "Well, what can you expect from the guy who directed Dogma?"
"I've been intoxicated to various levels with various substances in my life, and under the influence of those chemicals I've said my share of things that, upon sober reflection, I never would have said. But never once did I say anything that I didn't feel in my heart."
Well, aren't you special K the C?
Miss Jocasta loves her drinky-poos, and sometimes loves them a little (lot) too much. Once, I spent a long night clubbing with my girlfriends drinking cape cods and cosmos while fending off wealthy male admirers (of which I have many), and by the time I had to drag my bedraggled self home, I was not quite my steel magnolia self and had no business going all by my lonesome. After all, I could have ended up like that poor dear girl in New York whose was abandoned by friends, had her car towed, and was followed by a sinister cad, and...well we won't go there, and it will never happen to me since I usually have my trusty illegal handgun in my purse.
But, back to my story. Walking home, I passed by a certain gentlemen's sauna, whereupon I am waylaid by an evidently unhappy customer (no gentleman he) who didn't find what he was looking for, and was looking to little missy me to satisfy his romantic, financial, and, how shall we say it...,medical needs. Alarmed, and no gun in my purse, sossed little me, I hysterically screamed every unlady-like insult imaginable that one could direct towards a confirmed bachelor. I, of course, did not know what I was more appalled by - this awful man or saying those awful things that Big Daddy taught me never to say and which I obviously don't believe. After all, Quentin Crisp is my second most important role-model just after Dolly Madison. No doubt, if this same man had stumbled not from the gentleman's sauna, but from whatever they call juke joints now (hip hop joints?) or some other haunts of what my mother used to call "the Lower Orders," I would have said unlady-like things appropriate to the person in my condition that I do not believe.
I once had a psych course where the professor said that almost every evil thought known to man crosses one's mind at one time or another. Sometimes those thoughts get expressed (presumably egged on by alchohol) not because they are ever to be
acted on, but because it is a certainty they will shock, irritate, upset, or anger people--the goal of many who are drunk. And the drunk usually picks the shock words he knows people expect of him even if those ideas actually are repulsive to him.
On the other hand, if every Hollywood celebrity or power-broker who ever said anything bigoted, prejudiced, or nasty about Christians or the Christian Faith while sober were to be kicked out of tinseltown, the place would be a ghost town.
Many of Mark's points were right on target especially what he learned from the Dominican priest.
I said "you get Benedict XVI drunk as a skunk on home-grown weed and bathtub gin and he'll never, ever come out with an antisemetic rant. It's not in his heart."
To which Thomas Tucker replied:
Well, K of C, we don't actually know that to be true.
So this is what Gibson's defenders have sunk to: slandering the Holy Father to excuse Gibson.
Disgusting.
Seems some folks can read the hearts of others. They know Gibson is an anti-Semite in his heart & this is his *true self* showing. They somehow know he had a mental reservation when he wrote his apology & that he "denied responsibility" & blamed his drunkeness for his words & actions.
I know no such thing. I know what I read. Here's Gibson's full statement for those who wish to know the truth.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/...ment/
index.html
(Sorry, I can't get the hang of that HTML link text thing.)
He says what he did was "wrong" & "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable." He said "I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry."
I don't see "posturing" here. I see a man taking full responsibility for his actions. I see humility.
But then, I'm not trying to read his heart, either. Because I'm not God. As a Christian, what cause have I to believe he's lying? Has anyone here seen the disease of alcoholism first hand? I have in some friends & it's not at all pretty. Gibson needs our prayers. As a brother in Christ he needs our support. As do all folks who suffer from this or other addictions. It's called "mercy" my friends. Showing it is a beautiful & Christ-like thing.
God forbid that I should be judged by a viscious rant from my past. As a person who used to have very little control over his temper, there have been a number of them. God forbid that I should hold a grudge & refuse to forgive others who have done me wrong in various ways. I'd have missed out on some very wonderful reconcilliations of friendships that are so very important to me now.
God forbid that any one of us here should miss out on the mercy Christ wants to show us but that we all turn away from when we sin against His love.
Can anyone here say with a straight face that Gibson doesn't believe every word of what he said?
I've been intoxicated to various levels with various substances in my life, and under the influence of those chemicals I've said my share of things that, upon sober reflection, I never would have said. But never once did I say anything that I didn't feel in my heart.
Well, bully for you, K the C. But let me give you another reflection based on personal experience. My mother was an alcoholic; eventually it killed her. When she was drunk, she was wont to spew out the most hateful, ugly accusations and abuse at my father, my brother, and me. She was always very contrite when she sobered up, and assured us that she didn't believe those things. I guess you think that I ought to conclude that she was lying when sober, and that her drunkennesss merely allowed her to express the contempt she *really* had towards us. Sorry, but I don't buy it. It's much more plausible that she was filled with self-loathing, and that when drunk she diverted that loathing onto us. Further, I wouldn't be surprised to believe that something similar was going on with Gibson.
Several people commenting on Amy Welborn's blog have had similar experiences with alcoholic family members:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/
op...f.html#comments
Had the malefactor been Kevin Smith everyone would have said, "Well, what can you expect from the guy who directed Dogma?"
But doesn't that mean something? Yes, I'd expect it from Smith. He's repeatedly shown his stripes as a vulgar, perverse, hateful man. But Gibson is a family man recovering from alcohol addiction who's made some very moral & edifying films. So it's OK to vilify (in all meanings of that word) him?
Puh-leeze. Frankly, even thought I think Kevin Smith is an vulgar jerk, I still don't think it's my place to mirror his behavior by judging his heart. I have no idea what inner pain Smith might be harboring. So shouldn't I, as a Christian, make the choice to pray for him & hope for his conversion?
You folks can analyize Gibson's actions & words all you want. But at the end of the day, all we have is his apology. Take it or leave it. But it's God Who knows his true motivations. And he knows ours, too.
For those who are implying that drunkenness makes one less culpable for sins committed while drunk:
That's only true if you weren't responsible for being drunk in the first place. If you accidentally overimbibed or if you unknowingly drank spiked punch, your responsibility for your actions while impaired would be mitigated. But if you purposefully became drunk, the culpability increases. The reason purposeful drunkenness is a sin is precisely because it impairs the ability to reason and can cause you to do things you might not otherwise do.
It's classic Catholic moral theology that drunkenness can mitigate responsibility:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3...umma/
315004.htm
K the C wrote:
I'm not in a position to judge his apology. He doesn't owe me one. It is unfortunate, though, that the poster boy for Hollywood Catholics has revealed himself to be an anti-Semite.
Aren't you the guy who also believes the Good Friday liturgy to be anti-Semetic? *rolls eyes*
I'd have more sympathy for Mark's arguments (well stated, by the way)were it not for this: Mel WASN'T "plastered".
In fact, his blood alcohol levels were barely over the legal limit.
So just from where did these sentiments come?
"Barely over the legal limit"? He was .12, which is pretty drunk. The legal limit in California, and most states, is .08, making Mel 1.5 times the legal limit. Not exactly Princess Dianna's driver's levels, but still pretty hammered.
Remind me never to tie one on with K the C around.
Consider a skinhead racist who, through the power of salvation, comes to a firm knowledge that there truly is neither Jew nor Greek. What a pity it would be if judgemental predators like K the C were hovering over him waiting for his fleshly past to reveal itself on occasion, as it most inevitably would. The cross is heavy enough.
Not only that Sean, but genuine alcoholics can get crazy after just one drink. I've seen it happen.
As Deacon John says above, the drunk often picks the shock words that he thinks people expect of him...ideas that he actually finds repulsive when sober.
It's interesting that your refusal to extend forgiveness, K the C, is rationalized by YOU as an example of others explaining away Mel's dastardly deeds because they liked his movie so much.
I appreciated the movie as a sincere effort at devotional art, but the blood and gore wasn't my cup of tea. I wouldn't count myself as a huge fan of the movie.
But good grief, what does someone have to say to make a worthy apology? Apparently "deeply ashamed..disgraced...despicable" doesn't cut it with you.
I think that says more about you than it does about Mel Gibson.
So sue me.
+J.M.J+
>>>Consider a skinhead racist who, through the power of salvation, comes to a firm knowledge that there truly is neither Jew nor Greek. What a pity it would be if judgemental predators like K the C were hovering over him waiting for his fleshly past to reveal itself on occasion, as it most inevitably would. The cross is heavy enough.
Good point. Could it be that Mel Gibson is a "recovering" anti-Semite? Perhaps life experience around Jews caused him to reject the stuff he heard from his father while growing up. He may have sincerely tried to change his beliefs, but that garbage from his upbringing is still there in his head. The alcohol loosened his inhibitions enough to allow all that buried stuff to surface from his subconscious, or something like that.
I think that's at least a possibility. It could explain how he could have said all that stuff yet claims he "doesn't believe" it.
In Jesu et Maria,
I'm another "brain moron" who was raised by an alcoholic and incredibly prejudiced mother. When I was a young girl my mother accused me of various sexual sins (that I was too young to even understand, much less participate in)so color me someone who thinks people can say things they don't necessarily believe when drunk. I am NOT saying she or any other alcholic shouldn't be held accountable, BTW.
She also was (and remains to this day) incredibly paranoid. I can say from my personal experience that her very prejudiced opinions, which she freely expressed in public, definitely influenced the way I reacted to people. I have worked long and hard to recover from the damage caused by her rants and the statments she made when she was drunk. Rosemarie describes it as "garbage from his upbringing" and that is EXACTLY what it is. Garbage. And it takes a concerted, never-ending effort to keep it in check.
I'm glad I don't have to meet K of C in the confessional. I'm also glad we have more than one chance to have our sins forgiven. If not, I'd be in real trouble.
"The legal limit in California, and most states, is .08, making Mel 1.5 times the legal limit."
Crikey! I'd be on my lips. How much more drunk would he have to be for you, John?
Barely over the limit? Sheesh. I could hold my own in college but I'd have been on my lips for sure.
"Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!"
Thank God for your blog, and confidence that no thought of yours should ever go unpublished. You're right, Mark, on the Mel Gibson story.
K the C? Carmelite? PLEASE. I'm glad you're not a man and not a priest. And not in my diocese. The inquisition could have used good Catholics like you.
"K the C? Carmelite? PLEASE. I'm glad you're not a man and not a priest. And not in my diocese. The inquisition could have used good Catholics like you."
Err...don't slander the Inquisition. One of the reasons why witch hunts never took off in Inquisition countries was because no Inquisition in its right mind would assume that its inquisitors can read minds and hearts.
Mark, thank you for a very fine post.
Jonathan Lee wrote: Wait a minute, does this mean Gussie Fink-Nottle really was dull and boring, and that the prize-giving was just a brief slip after all?
ROTFL.
A fellow addict, I presume?
Diane
BTW, Mark Shea---I'm flabbergasted by some of the comments here.
God forgives, but apparently man doesn't, as Violetta noted in her e2change with the elder Germont:
Se pur beneficio - le indulga Iddio,
L'uomo implacabile - per lei sara'.
Yes, Diane. I almost never tire of that whole account at Market Snodsbury Grammar School, and I was glad that that book was one of the ones my mom sent me during deployment.
Jonathan: That scene makes me laugh out loud. Talk about classic.
Have you read any of the Psmith books? [i]Leave It to Psmith[/i] is my favorite. The sendup of modern poetry is alone worth the price of the book, IMHO. Then there's Psmith himself---perfectly delicious!
"A contrite and ashamed Mel Gibson learns up close and in person how ugly Jewish liberals can get." Read this article from the Society of Americans for National Existence:
http://www.saneworks.us/Mel-Gibs...ticle-149-
7.htm
JMJ
Your Fr. Sweeney was surely correct. You explain this very well. I particularly liked this comment:
“When I read things like this, I always wonder a) what exactly would satisfy this sort of person; b) if this person has *never* been to confession for the same sin twice and c) if this person has never known *anybody* who struggled with addiction.”
On the other hand, it is a bit presumptuous to imply that because Gibson was “drunk” that he is an alcoholic. Or for that matter, that he was “drunk” as defined by the Church!
You make another comment elsewhere that is a jewel: “Puritanism has been defined as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun”
But reading your posts I am confused. I thought you were a “Siriyist.” Am I mistaken? You can answer me privately if you’d like: editor@TheFourMarks.com
Commenting by HaloScan
