Good for Archbishop Chaput! "Between a decent man and his critics, I'll go with the decent man."

Imagine doing such a provocative thing as portraying the Gospels accurately. How insensitive of Mel!
Larry | 05.30.03 - 6:01 pm | #

Did the bishops' committee really condemn this movie (in advance) because it presents "the Gospel accounts of Jesus' passion as historical facts"???????? Is this report online? At the same time I find this article both impossible to believe and way too plausible. If this article is accurate, I think you'll see a grown man cry that a committee sponsored by the US Bishops could say such a thing.
Stephen | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 6:20 pm | #

"Cardinal William Keeler, the U.S. bishops' moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, was quick to point out that the committee's findings did not represent a formal position of the bishops' conference."

Relax. It was just a bunch of PC ecclesiats and academics jawing, nothing official.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 6:26 pm | #

The theme of the criticisms seems to be echoed in many of the sermons I hear. Let's not worry about the difficult things Jesus went through, lets just focus on how nice He was to everybody.
Dave | 05.30.03 - 7:25 pm | #

I know it's nothing official, but it's still in part from representatives of the bishops themselves. Are these the kind of people we have involved with the high-level ecumenical work? People who don't think the Gospels should be taken literally, and think that the old covenant is salvific? If I sent David Duke to represent me at a meeting on race relations, what would you assume about me? If these aren't the official positions of the US bishops, then why don't they send a representative who WILL espouse official Catholic teachings? I understand the distinction about whether or not it's officially the bishops' teachings, but I'd venture to say that 95% of Catholics don't, along with 99% of the rest of the population. When something is reported (accurately) as having come from an official representative of a department of the USCCB, what's everybody naturally going to think? And why aren't our shepherds taking a stronger stand to clarify the confusion?
Stephen | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 7:27 pm | #

Wow! If they're this hard on the New Testament what will they say when it dawns on them that it's seen through the visions of Catherine Emmerich?! Shall we just remind them about the adage re: when two people agree on the same facts?
Chris K. | 05.30.03 - 9:16 pm | #

The money spent on the "ad hoc committee of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs" should go to the Catholic Relief Services in the Holy Land.

If everything coming out of this committee is immediately contradicted by the USCCB, what's the point?
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 10:55 pm | #

After all this hoopla before the film's even out, I certainly hope it plays in Boston. Like Mark, I'd like to see it before forming an opinion.
Jen | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 11:39 pm | #

I am pretty sure I am going to like it (as far as you can like the passion) but will wait as well to make decisions.
Todd Reitmeyer | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 6:55 am | #

I remember Reading in the Tablet some Priest already reviewed hours of footage from the film & said it wasn't anti-semitic.

My only quible is Jesus speaking latin to the Romans. I think hew would have likley spoken Greek to them. But that is a minor quible.
BenYachov(James Scott 4th) | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 8:59 am | #

Seeing the Passion through the eyes of Emmerich and Agreda is exactly what worries me about these films. No private revelation equals Holy Writ. These two are most certainly not showing you the Gospel exactly as it happened. I've written hostile articles on both that proved too hot to handle for three Catholic publications approached thus far.
Sandra Miesel | 05.31.03 - 11:36 am | #

"a graphic movie presentation of the crucifixion could reawaken the very anti-Semitic attitudes that we have devoted our careers to combating."

That's like saying a graphic movie presentation of world war II could reawaken anti german attitudes. Germany does not equal nazi. Jewish does not equal "christ-killer".

How is it that I grew up with out it ever entering my mind that "the jews" killed christ?
Christian | 05.31.03 - 11:49 am | #

By the way, Sandra. No offense, but maybe if the articles you've written were not hostile, some Catholic publications would handle them.
Just a suggestion.
Christian | 05.31.03 - 11:51 am | #

I just wonder how anyone will tolerate sitting through two hours or so of Aramaic. I wonder if the movie will be Mel Gibson's equivalent of Travolta's "Battlefield Earth." I hope not.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 12:57 pm | #

I write what I believe to be the truth and I'm not about to praise Emmerich and Agreda's versions of the Bible because I think them demonstrably false on many points. Example: Emmerich's idea of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was conceived through her parents' kiss at the Golden Gate, not parental intercourse. Agreda has her pre-formed in her father's sperm with no genetic input from her mother (17th C biology), then ensouled at 8 days. I'm supposed to praise the writers of such nonsense?
Sandra Miesel | 05.31.03 - 1:17 pm | #

Sandra, just out of curiousity, why do these writers need to rule out normal sexual intercourse as the cause of Mary's conception? Nothing heretical about that.
Lector | 05.31.03 - 4:59 pm | #

Peace, all.

I'm with Ben on the language point. Probably other nits to pick in the film as well. The ancients would likely frown on modern attempts to depict events, especially religious events such as the Passion. Nothing beats a good liturgical presentation of the Passion, so I'm not inclined to watch this film any more than I was the Last Temptation.
Todd | 05.31.03 - 5:01 pm | #

Sandra, Right On.
caroline | 05.31.03 - 5:29 pm | #

Lector: Extreme prudery, perchance?
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 6:29 pm | #

There's no explanation in the text as to why Mary had to be virginally conceived but I believe they thought the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception required a physical "purity" as well as a spiritual sinlessness. Remember, people used to think that marital relations inevitably involved some lsight sin--the people lost control of themselves after all! Some strange ideas circulated in the Middle Ages that would have required St. Anne to have also been immaculate. Several books about St. Anne from 17th C Naples were put on the INDEX and I wonder if it wasn't a survival of that notion. The University of Paris asked for Agreda to be put on the INDEX, too, because of her treatment of the Immaculate Conception, but the Pope backed off under pressure from the Spanish Crown.
I read the whole four volumes of Agreda--the edited one volume edition cuts out much of the silly stuff--and folks, since I suffered, I want to world to know about it.
Emmerich was just skizzy about sex. She had husbands parting from wives, living in separate tents, after baptism in the first waves of conversion. Baptisms, by the way, achieved by Apostle and candidate poling out in the Pool of Siloe on a skiff and letting the spurting fountain in the center of the pool sprinkle the new Christian.
Sandra Miesel | 05.31.03 - 8:26 pm | #

I'm having a hard time digesting all of this. It's been done a million times, this time, from a truly Catholic perspective, and you are already going to condemn it before it even comes out?! Have you seen the interviews on World Over-Live with Mel or with Jim, the actor portraying Christ?! Cavezial is so devout, I don't believe he would portray Jesus unless it was according to Traditional Catholic Beliefs. I think this movie could lead many to Jesus, to understand what He truly went through for each one of us. And to conversion. Is that a bad thing?! Too many people sugar coat what Christ went through, people say, or yeah, he died for us. Big deal. Well it is a Big deal!!! And people need a wake up call. I think this could be "it" for a lot of people, believers and non-believers alike. Anti-Jew - give me a break. The Jews are our Fathers in Faith. If it weren't for Jews, like Abraham, Isaac, and the like . . . well, you know where this is going. Everything Jewish points to Jesus. Jesus is the fullfillment of all things Jewish. Do we really need to be reminded of that? In every movie about the Passion that I have seen, it is always missing something, or is too "pretty". And where is Our Lady in any of the other portrayals? In this movie, she will be visible, going through in Her heart, what Jesus went through in His body. Just as our Church teaches!! What is the problem that everyone has with this movie? I just don't get it. I expect a lot from this movie. And one more thing . . . All things worthy of God come by having to travel a rough road. This movie certainly fits that bill. Just one more thing, and I'll get off my rant. You can't seriously compare this movie to "The Last Temptation of Christ". That, my friends, is blasphemous.
Deanna | 05.31.03 - 11:12 pm | #

If it were a 25 million dollar project to denigrate Christ, you can bet the usual cast of suspects wouldn't be able to stop praising it.

They can't even give him points for what is an extremely gutsy thing to do -- use the original languages.
Therese | 06.01.03 - 12:16 am | #

Sandra,

I'm curious. How is the virginal conception of Mary 'demonstrably false'? Certainly it would be a miracle but Christianity is full of miracles.
Katherine | 06.01.03 - 2:52 am | #

A miraculous--not simply virginal, but in Emmerich's case not involving egg and sperm in any way--conception of Mary through her parents' kiss is unnecessary and frankly, absurd. Who wants to deprive St. Joachim of the honor of being her father?
Agreda imagines parental intercourse but is using 17th C biology's view that the embryo was preformed in St. Joachim's sperm and St. Anne made no contribution to the process other than to serve as an incubating "nest." Agreda also has St. Joachim's previously prevailing impotence miraculously lifted for the one occasion it took to beget Mary. (You wouldn't want people thinking that Our Lady's parents indulged in That Sort of Thing often, would you?)
Back to my original point that these "revelations" are not records of "what really happened" and include a lot of silliness.
Sandra Miesel | 06.01.03 - 11:24 am | #

Agreda is, I suppose, describing a natural event rather than a miracle, apart from the cure of Joachim's impotence. Certainly her description of what happened is demonstrably false.

Emmerich, though, is describing a miracle. Her account cannot be demonstrably false unless it is possible to demonstrate that miracles are impossible. Of course it is unnecessary and absurd, as you say, but, to my mind, no more so than the virginal conception of Jesus.
Katherine | 06.01.03 - 12:59 pm | #

If you want to dwell only in what logically seems absurd, you could wind up discounting the whole New Covenant of the New Testament and all the miraculous events spoken about therein which were used to bring it about convince people of its truth. The very idea of Sarah's (from the old) and Elizabeth's are absurd to many. The idea of healing through spittle rubbed on a man's eyes - and even then a couple of times by God Himself is another. God has ways other than Sola Scriptura in His ongoing revelations of His mysteries. Unless someone was actually there they should never say never to such possibilities for what only God plans. Remember, Thomas Aquinas, as brilliant as he was, could not bring himself to believe in what is now a dogma of the Church he so loved and defended. Fear not this cinematic production - I guarantee worse have influenced the audiences and without any criticism.
Chris K. | 06.01.03 - 2:05 pm | #

For an excellent all inclusive defense of Catherine Emmerich, go here:

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3586.htm

and especially scroll down to this paragraph beginning with:

"As for the charge that Emmerich says Mary was ensouled not simultaneously at but after her physical conception, this is not heresy."
Chris K. | 06.01.03 - 2:28 pm | #

I didn't say anything about Mary's ensoulment according to Emmerich. I said Agreda mentions ensoulment at eight days instead of the usual 80 and this is presented as the absolute truth straight from the mouth of the Blessed Virgin. Ditto the false science of her conception. Agreda also has Mary's pregnancy proceed without amniotic fluid or a placenta (so it will be "tidy"). Is somebody going to insist that this is a miraculous possibility?
I read a long defense of Emmerich in THE WANDERER. It did not impress me in the least. Her historical settings, costumes, customs are so wildly off the mark! This is a religious fantasy, heavily influenced by medieval legends not a glimpse of reality. Who could read about skiffs on the Pool of Siloe and take it seriously?
THE LIFE OF CHRIST and BIBLICAL REVELATIONS have much wilder stuff than THE DOLOROUS PASSION. The details of the crucifixion are medieval not Roman. The bit about nailing one hand down--through the palm which is wrong--and the other having to be stretched abnormally to fit on a predrilled spot is right out of a 15th C mystery play. So are the details of nailing the feet. Are these elements that Mel has borrowed? Are the 30 Pieces of Silver going to be triangular bits of silver strung on a cord a la Emmerich and not minted coins? And so on and so on. What's wrong with just doing the Gospels supplemented by known history?
Sandra Miesel | 06.01.03 - 3:53 pm | #

The defense of Emmerich states that anyone who hasn't read the German comments of the 19th century which did not get translated into English, as well as all the recent scientific literature officially related to the beatification process cannot competently critique the writings.
Chris K. | 06.01.03 - 9:34 pm | #

The canonization process proceeds by avoiding the whole issue of the writings. That was what re-activated her cause after it had stopped in the 1920s when it was discovered how much her secretary Clemens Brentano had contributed to the "revelations." Brentano was a major Romantic poet before coming to work for Emmerich. So there are untranslated German commentaries that would explain away the sheer silliness that is there, like the examples I mentioned above or the impossible costumes or the wrong kind of sets and props. These are pious fantasies based on medieval traditions not "real" views of Gospel events.
Another example: Emmerich was reputed to be able to distinguish true relics from false, worthless claims with out doubleblind testing. and once remarked that she had a bit of fabric from a dress Mary had worn in one of her visions--made of striped silk. Silk!
The German bishops and the Augustinian order being short of saints want this woman canonized and so she will be. That won't make her visions any more valid than they were to begin with.
And by the way, Emmerich, Agreda, and Birgitta of Sweden disagree on facts but they must all be True say the credulous.
Sandra Miesel | 06.02.03 - 2:02 pm | #

I suppose, for that matter, we can say that even though there are somewhat differing accounts of the gospel stories, we find what is most important in the essence of the same truth that comes through. I mean, we don't even know just how many Marys there were that are talked about - or just which one was which and if or not the one was the sinner in the way most interpret her to be. We interpret anew as more evidence is discovered by the experts and it will probably continue to evolve in our deeper understanding. Getting hung up on fabric and only the outer expression due to a writer's own time and thoughts of that time which inevitably get wrapped in the known elements of that day can prevent one from grasping the deeper meaning intended. That meaning within the mystical realm is what religious historians try to discern. We now have stigmatists with wounds in different places that previous ones experienced, due, they say, to what is known today rather than what was believed to be naturally more acceptable at a previous time and meant for the believers of that time. It's all a bit too complicated for me to try to sum up with some final stamp of neat approval that justifies all the details. In fact,in the minds of most today is a very sanitized Jesus - not the truth!
Chris K. | 06.02.03 - 3:51 pm | #

You're still left with Emmerich saying--in conversation, not her "revelations"--that this scrap of silk was actually worn by the Blessed Virgin in her earthly life when that cannot be so. No "deeper truth" wrapped in contemporary language, just an error. The costumes Emmerich puts on Mary in her visions are utterly unhistorical--and most certainly not going to be validated by some new discoveries--just a former dressmaker's imagination run wild. I'd rather read the real Gospels.
Sandra Miesel | 06.02.03 - 4:27 pm | #

Have you seen Roualt's Jesus? Uses the means given him - dark, thick simplistic lines which give quite a meaningful, soulful Jesus....yet cannot be said to fulfill the "real" Christ...but certainly the Christ (limited as the art makes Him) he envisions and somehow the Spirit speaks, at least to some, through the "imagination" of this human.
For that matter, how many Madonnas in art are dressed as the artist would either like Her to be or as how She might "sell" to the public...or just for the times. Perhaps the only model they have. Yet, most express some quality of ideal beauty they only wish to capture. We have many of these figures in our memories, yet realize it's but a human gesture, trying to express something inexpressible. Recently there was some comment around here about the image of Guadalupe, saying, while discussing, Mary as co-redemptrix, "yeah, right, a peasant Indian as co-redemtrix" - no way! (paraphrasing).
Chris K. | 06.02.03 - 4:47 pm | #

You're missing the point that Emmerich's visions were sold to the public as heaven-sent "real" pictures of what "really" happened, not a piece of literary art. (So were Valtorta's.) This is in no way comparable to painting or writing about Bible events in a non-realistic way.
They were supposed to "prove" the truth of Catholicism to a secularizing world. Thus the baptism by sprinkling water from a fountain was supposed to "prove" that aspersion was a valid form of the sacrament and immersion was not required.
If taken as pious artifice and not a record of reality, Emmerich's visions are notable for their cozy, romanticized approach with lots of intrusive auctorial comments. The literary quality varies because only the DOLOROUS PASSION was completely polished by Brentano. Personally I found medieval lives of Christ more charming ( for instance the HELIAND or THE LIFE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOR by Gerson) and no supernatural claims were made about the writing.
Sandra Miesel | 06.02.03 - 9:09 pm | #

There is always a caveat given by the Church when it comes to private revelations - even approved ones. There is always the mention of how the "seer's" personal experiences, degree of education psychological and spiritual formation comes to play. I doubt if anyone, noticing the differences in the descriptive usage material aspects between the seer's moment and the moment of what is described will stop there for their final impression of some mystical yet historical moment in the life of their beliefs. In every reading there is that personal effect that you mention yourself as being "charmed". Even a complete reading of the bible can leave the reader untouched if there is no connection to the heart - esp. when they can find no application to their own experience....until, perhaps, a light goes on through another's personal revelation, as long as it does not negate the faith and morals. And the personal subconscious belief can go on selecting these charmed descriptions for comforting at times their endless search for what won't be revealed perfectly in this life. Still, there is a usefulness in such visions when taken as a whole and the personal involvment of the holy person which apparently, over the years, seems to continue to beckon.
Amen...and so long, sister!!
Chris K. | 06.03.03 - 10:25 am | #