Deliver Us from Evil

Ash Wednesday brought us mountains of media coverage of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, which is racking up huge sales in its first week of general release. The controversy is actually rather mild, compared to Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ (1988): no cinema companies are refusing to show the movie, no bishops are commanding people not to see it, no police barricades are needed to separate ticket buyers from protestors. The critic who claimed, “this is the most controversial movie in memory” must have a very short memory indeed.

Nonetheless, millions of Catholics will see the film during Lent, and it may well trigger more talk about Jesus, anti-Semitism, and religion in general than we’ve heard in a long time. So before commenting (next time) on the movie itself, I’d like to offer some general guidelines for viewers.

What this movie is NOT. First, it is not a faithful rendition of the gospels. It includes material from all four gospels, and additional scenes imagined by Gibson and other writers he admires.

Remember, the gospels offer four distinct, often contradictory portraits of Jesus. Any movie that blends them together distorts these portraits and gives you something else—someone else’s idea of Jesus. The only gospel-true movie ever made is The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964), which includes only the scenes and dialog that appear in St. Matthew’s text—nothing else.

Second, Gibson's film is not a life of Christ. It covers only the last day of his life (excepting a few flashbacks) and leaves out most of his life, his preaching, teaching and healing, as well as his post-Easter appearances.

Finally, the movie is not a presentation of Christian beliefs about Jesus. Though “Christ” appears in the title, the film does not touch on any of the later developments of Christian teaching on several important questions: “Who is this Christ? What did he accomplish? What is his relationship to God? To us?” For Christian believers, all this may be taken for granted. For other viewers, none of it is explained.

What the Movie IS. I heard one priest describe this movie as “Technicolor Stations of the Cross.” That’s not far from the truth, but technically Gibson’s title is more accurate: the film is a “Passion” narrative. We Catholics get that narrative (but only one gospel version at a time) at Mass to begin every Holy Week; in many parishes the reading is staged, with different voices for different parts.

More specifically, though, this is a filmed version of the traditional “Passion Plays” popular in Europe from the medieval period until the mid-20^th century. Passion plays went out of fashion, in no small part, because they often catered to anti-Semitic attitudes that both Vatican II and John Paul II have rejected. For some people, though, reviving the “Passion Play” concept caters to something else: a sentimental nostalgia for the “good old days” when both Catholicism and culture seemed simpler. It may even trigger childhood awe which some Catholics still long for.

Who the Director is. Mel Gibson has described himself on national TV as “the kind of Catholic who was typical before 1960.” He means, of course, before Vatican II. He has explained his belief that Christ “opened the gates” closed by the sin of “the original humans” by undergoing the “sacrifice” depicted in his movie. He hopes that his vision for the film is guided by the ”Holy Ghost.” His language and concepts fit the mainstream of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. I remember being taught how baptism into Christ “washed away the stain” of original sin on the soul. I remember, too, learning about the “Holy Sacrifice” of the Mass. Only later did I learn that the Mass, while reflecting “in an unbloody manner” Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, does so by re-enacting the Seder meal Jesus shared with his apostles at the Last Supper. Gibson’s kind of Catholic tends to see only the Cross above the altar, overlooking that the altar itself is set for a meal. It is a kind of Catholicism, in fact, that tends to overlook many important things—including most of Catholic history.

What we Shouldn’t Forget. Any “Passion Play” brings us back to another time, so we should never forget the context of that time. Some Catholics, for example, suppose the Romans invented crucifixion for Jesus, when in fact it was the standard tool for executing criminals in the Roman Empire’s occupied territories.

Other Catholics assume that Jesus underwent unique suffering, but in fact “criminals” were crucified on a routine basis—in public, in order to terrorize the Empire’s conquered peoples into submission. Even on Good Friday, Jesus was but one of three men crucified that day. Presumably, dozens of men shared Jesus suffering in the weeks before and after his own execution—and nothing in the gospels indicates otherwise.

Finally, we should remember that the “Sacrifice” Christ made for all people did not consist in the pain and agony of being tortured by the Romans. His sacrifice was in dying on the cross—because his death proved God’s willingness to share with his people the whole of human experience—from birth in Bethlehem to death in Jerusalem. All humans suffer—it is the human condition—and God’s will was not to trump our suffering, but to share in it. We worship Jesus as our Redeemer, not because his pain was greater than ours, but because his love was greater. “For God so loved the world….”

Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com