Buttersquash Ranch

The Anti-Semitism of the Passion of the Christ is not Catholic

There has been no more controversial movie this year than “The Passion of the Christ,” by Mel Gibson from a script co–written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald. Much has been made of Gibson’s professed Catholicism and the movie’s purported faithfulness to the Scriptures, although the greatest controversy has been that the film promotes anti–Semitism.

After viewing the film and reading hundreds of pages of commentary on the beliefs of Gibson, as described by others and expressed by Gibson himself, I must state that the accusations of anti–Semitism in the film are accurate, and that more than being an accurate portrayal of Roman Catholic faith, it is in fact heterodox, and specifically contrary to modern Catholic doctrine.

This should come as no surprise to those who have followed the discussion of Mel Gibson’s family background, particularly that of his father, Hutton Gibson. Hutton Gibson, a vociferous anti–Semite who professes that the current Pope is a Jew, and that the reforms of Vatican II which, among other things, repudiated a Scriptural basis for anti–Semitism, were a Masonic–Jewish conspiracy. Among other books, he authored “Is the Pope Catholic?” He answered his own rhetorical question in the negative. Among other insults and epithets he regularly slings at the current Pope, he additionally calls him “Garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser.” (Noxon 50) Hutton Gibson’s beliefs are best described as sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is the specific belief that while the Holy See of Rome is the seat of Catholicism, that seat remains open, which is to say that the Pope is an illegitimate usurper.

Extremist statements such as that of Hutton Gibson have in the past been accompanied by extreme actions. In May of 1982, a sedevacantist priest, Juan Maria Fernandez Krohn, was arrested after lunging at Pope John Paul II with a bayonet. Fernandez was an ordinee of a Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a leading sedevacantist (Kamm A11). The positions and conduct of Lefebvre are so clearly schismatic, in rejecting the authority of the Pope, that John Paul II excommunicated him by Apostolic Letter on July 2, 1988 (John Paul II 1).

While some of his beliefs, specifically his Holocaust denial, are not endorsed by his son, there is too much ideological similarity between them to write off. My conclusion is that while Gibson may have not adopted the more virulent anti–Semitism his father espouses, his views of the Vatican and the legitimacy of the Pope are clearly the same sedevacantist views for which John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre. He has openly attacked the Vatican in past years, describing it as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” More specifically, he stated: “My love for religion was transmitted to me by my father. But I do not believe in the Church as an institution” (Owen 19). It is hard to imagine a more explicit repudiation of Roman Catholicism.

I should note before I get into some rather complex matters of Catholic doctrine that while I am an ex–Catholic, and therefore take no personal offense at Gibson’s version of Catholicism, I do object to what I see as bogus attempts to capitalize on the perceived credibility of the Roman Catholic Church in order to sell his movie.

I have to report that the movie itself reflects this rejection of post–Vatican II doctrine and, specifically, is in stark contradiction to the Church’s guidelines for Passion plays. I cite specifically Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion, issued by the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988.

The offenses in the Passion of the Christ are legion, and beyond the scope of this essay to catalog in their entirety, so I will merely choose a few illustrative examples that spring to mind immediately. It is as if Gibson went down the list of anti–Semitic Scriptural distortions and systematically committed each one in sequence.

“Jews should not be portrayed as . . . blood thirsty (e.g., in certain depiction’s of Jesus’ appearances before the Temple Priesthood or before Pilate)” (Bishops’ Committee 8). There is no scene involving the Jews in which they are portrayed as anything but bloodthirsty, as a class and as individuals. The only clear exception other than Christ’s followers, who are barely portrayed as being Jews at all, is Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross after he falls the third time. A Roman soldier curses the reluctant Simon as “Jew!” This appears to be the only concession to the fierce loathing of the Jews prevalent in the Roman Empire at this time.

Additionally, continues the “Criteria,” Jews should not be portrayed as “implacable enemies of Christ (e.g., by changing the small “crowd” at the governor’s palace into a teeming mob” (Bishops’ Committee 8). The mob at the governor’s palace in Gibson’s movie is nothing if not teeming, and would not be out of place in a Cecil B. DeMille epic. “Such depictions, with their obvious ‘collective guilt’ implications, eliminate those parts of the gospels that show that the secrecy surrounding Jesus’ ‘trial’ was motivated by the large following he had in Jerusalem and that the Jewish populace, far from wishing his death, would have opposed it had they known and, in fact, mourned his death by Roman execution (cf. Lk 23:27)” (Bishops’ Committee 8) While there is some lip service paid to this in that Jesus is accused by Caiphas and others of being the leader of a large and dangerous sect, this large sect appears mostly invisible.

Finally, the “Criteria” mentions displays of religious symbols. “Displays of the menorah, tablets of the law, and other Jewish symbols should appear throughout the play and be connected with Jesus and his friends no less than with the Temple or with those opposed to Jesus” (Bishops’ Committee 10). To the contrary, virtually no Jewish symbols are associated with Jesus, and even the Jewish mob and the Temple have only token appearances of such symbols. From the behavior of the vast majority of Jews throughout the film, it is barely apparent that they share a religion and culture with Christ and his apostles.

Finally, and most specifically sedevacantistic is the use of 27:24–25, uttered by the high priest Caiphas, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” As noted by Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books, Gibson removed the translation of this verse from the subtitles, although it remains in the spoken Aramaic (Wills 1). This line, perhaps the most controversial in the New Testament, is often considered the Scriptural basis for anti–Semitism. According to Peter Boyer, Gibson’s stated reason for removing the subtitle was that if he included it, “they’d be coming after me at my house, they’d come kill me” (qtd. in Wills 1). This appears rather disingenuous in light of the fact that he did, indeed, include the line, if only in Aramaic.

Leaving aside whether that line from Matthew justifies anti–Semitism, let us return to the Criteria. That specific line is, itself, a subject of discussion:

In the above instances, for example, one could take from John’s gospel the phrase “the Jews” and mix it with Matthew 27:24–25, clearly implying a “blood guilt” on all Jews of all times in violation of Nostra Aetate’s dictum that “what happened in his passion cannot be blamed on all the Jews then living without distinction nor upon the Jews of today.” Hence, if the Matthean phrase is to be used (not here recommended), great care would have to be taken throughout the presentation to ensure that such an interpretation does not prevail. (12)

Contrary to this admonition, and the others noted, Gibson deploys the “blood guilt” line in the precise context—a violent mob, greedy and dishonest Pharisees, a near total lack of support for Christ—in which an impression of “collective guilt” is inevitable.

This general approach to the Passion is based in a rejection of Vatican II and the repudiation of anti–Semitism in such church documents as Nostra Aetate and the Criteria. Whether Gibson intends to promulgate anti–Semitism or not, the specific rejection of post–Vatican II doctrine inherent to sedevacantism leaves intact the anti–Semitism it repudiated. In short, Gibson’s approach to the Passion is not only heterodox, but tends toward anti–Semitism because of the precise flavor of his heterodoxy.

In conclusion, however, because the anti–Semitism of the film requires contextual doctrinal knowledge not generally familiar to the mass audience to which the film appeals, it slips in “under the radar,” especially when the film is assumed to be an accurate historical portrayal of events, which it is not, or doctrinally sound, which it is also not. This is accentuated in the audience in which is has enjoyed surprising success, that is, among conservative Protestants. Its mass appeal is especially interesting, considering it is a film which employs dense Catholic iconography—it is not for no reason the production company is named Icon—and the themes reflect Gibson’s personal resolution to doctrinal disputes of little interest outside of Catholicism. While I have limited myself generally to analysis of the doctrinal elements of the film and why I believe it not to be orthodox, I should also note in closing that I believe the broad appeal of the film is in that it draws upon a rich heritage of imagery and belief, one shared between Protestants and Catholics and even some Jews. It is, however, precisely because of its success in its target audience that the anti–Semitism is most pernicious. I cannot, finally, feel that this is innocent, since the specific anti–Semitic aspects of the film are at the core of the dispute which split his family and himself from the Roman Catholic Church. This split is based on a rejection of Vatican II, and that very rejection embraces the anti–Semitism repudiated by modern Catholic thought.

Works Cited

Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion. Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1988. 7 Apr. 2004. <http://www.usccb.org/seia/CRITERIA.PDF>

Boyer, Peter J. "The Jesus War: Mel Gibson's Obsession." The New Yorker 15 Sep. 2003: 71.

John Paul II. Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei. 2 Jul. 1988. 31 Mar. 2004 <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html>

Kamm, Henry. “Pope Says Falkland Fighting Puts His British Trip in Doubt.” The New York Times 17 May 1982, late city ed.: A11+.

Noxon, Christopher. “Is the Pope Catholic. . .Enough?” The New York Times 9 Mar 2003, late ed., sec. 6: 50+

Owen, Richard. “Mel Gibson launches scathing attack on the Vatican.” The Times (London) 13 Sep. 2002, Overseas News: 19.

Wills, Garry. “God in the Hands of Angry Sinners.” New York Review of Books 8 Apr. 2004. 31 Mar. 2004.

Works Consulted

Cork, William J. “The Passion of the Christ: Crisis and Opportunity in Jewish–Catholic Relations.” 6 Apr.2004 <http://www.wquercus.com/passion.htm>

Second Vatican Council. Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non–Christian Religions. 28 Oct. 1965. 31 Mar. 2004.

Coomaraswamy, Rama P. “A Brief for Sedevacantism.” 30 Mar 2004 <http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/Sedevacantism.pdf> Posted by muldrake at April 15, 2004 11:05 PM | TrackBack