Reflections on "The Passion of the Christ"
by
David Allen White, Ph.D.
Reviews offer evaluations of movies; this is not a review because Mel
Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ is not a “movie”; it is a great
work of Catholic art and a turning point in human history.
Who would have guessed back in the year 2000 as one millennium passed
into another that in a few brief years the highest grossing five day
opening in cinema history would be for a film that chronicles in
excruciating detail the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ? In
a world gone secular and filled with lies, ruled by demonic hatred of
the Truth, especially the Truth of God; in a world awash in sin and
rife with unrestrained and prideful human desires, governed by hatred
of the Good, especially the Goodness of God; in a world defaced by
ugliness and reveling in deformity, governed by the hatred of Beauty,
especially the Beauties of God’s Creation; in such a world who could
have imagined the box office triumph and the heart-felt response to a
true work of art, a good work of art, a beautiful work of art,
especially one that demands so much of the viewer?
The extreme reactions evoked by the film provide a straightforward
spiritual litmus test. Will you see the film or not? Will you
believe the film or not? Will you obey His Commandments or not? Has
there ever been a work of art so miraculously designed to separate the
sheep from the goats, or to see if the sheep will follow the shepherd
or stray off on their own? The film must be divinely inspired.
Mr. Gibson has said that the real maker of the work is the Holy Spirit.
He has been mocked for saying so. In a historical sense, he has said
nothing unusual. All artists and poets and musicians from the dawn of
time have known that they are dependent on an outward force that works
through them to produce the end product. Some arrogant artists have
assumed they were themselves the source of their genius, but for the
most part such men are aberrations. The majority of great artists have
ap-pealed to the “muses” or to “divine inspiration” or to God Himself
for assistance. Following their creative act, they have thanked the
source, such as Bach writing “S.D.G.” at the conclusion of his
compositions – “Soli Deo Gloria”, “To God Alone the Glory.” The
director of The Passion merely places himself in line with these great
artists.
The howling voices in the press would deny Mr. Gibson the status of
artist. A real artist, according to their perverse judgment, mocks our
Lord, as do many in the film who jeer as Our Lord passes along the Via
Dolorosa. You may place a crucifix in a beaker of urine or create a
“portrait” of the Blessed Virgin with elephant dung, you may suggest
Our Lord had unruly passions directed toward Mary Magdalene or
unnatural relations with His Disciples – this is real spirituality and
profound insight say the twisted, liberal, academic, worldly
commentators. Yes, the spirituality of the demonic, the profundity of
the abyss. To show the truth of Our Lord’s sorrow and suffering and
sacrifice drives them into a violent frenzy, just as when a vampire is
confronted with a crucifix. The elite “intellec-tuals” in America are
indeed the walking dead.
These same voices who sang hosannas and built shrines before the bloody
carnage and gory excesses of Peckinpah and Spielberg and Tarantino now
hold their noses in the air and sniff at the “violence” in Mel Gibson’s
masterpiece. This is a self-evident red herring. There have indeed been
times when violence was considered unsuitable for human viewing. The
Greeks of the fifth century B.C. allowed violence on the stage with
only rare exceptions. They considered it “obscene”, which in Greek
means “away from the scene” or “off-stage”. These actions, not being
proper for civilized men to witness, were to occur off-stage. Thus
Oedipus blinds himself off-stage and Medea slays her own children
off-stage. The Greeks were also so sensitive to religious piety that
when Aeschylus put the female goddesses of revenge, the Furies, on
stage in a scene set at the Temple of Apollo, the mere thought of such
sacrilege so disturbed audiences that grown men fainted and pregnant
women mis-carried.
Such is not our time. We are more like the Romans, a society centered
on politics and law and engineering, legitimate pursuits that too
easily descend into manipulation and legalisms and pride. Like the
Romans, we have a thirst for blood. For decades our cinema screens have
been awash with blood. We have had no qualms about allowing our young
to grow up watching (via movies and television and video games)
thousands and thousands of simulated horrors. We called this artistic
freedom. Such freedom stops, however, when it comes to Our Lord. His
Passion should not be shown. Why not? The simple fact, of course,
though the raucous voices of hate would never admit it, is that they
know quite well what His Blood represents, as opposed to all the rest
of the blood shed for years on many of those same screens. And the
director makes this fact very clear. This is His Precious Blood, made
Precious because it is the Blood sacrificed to the Father in atonement,
as the reparation for the sins of the world. His precious Blood had to
be shed, among thousands of other causes, because parents in our time
would love their own children so little as to allow them to be killed
in the womb or, if they survive, to grow up watching bloody horrors and
other obscenities that will scar their young souls for eternity. The
Preciousness of the Blood of the Christ is underlined in the
magnificent scene where Pilate’s wife brings the white cloths to the
two Marys. Unable to bind Our Lord’s wounds as He has already been
taken away, they kneel in the courtyard and wipe up that Blood, letting
it be absorbed into the large swaths. They are not cleaning the ground;
they are preserving His Precious Blood, the Precious Blood shed for the
critics and the academics and the self-appointed “intelligentsia.” They
know this and it drives them mad.
It should also madden the novus ordo establishment. God in His infinite
wisdom has allowed the greatest work of Catholic art, and thus the
greatest work of art, of the age to be created by a Traditional
Catholic. In a post-Vatican II Church that has turned its eyes away
from the Passion of Our Lord, Mel Gibson has shoved this hard Truth
before the eyes of the world. He has done more apostolic work in the
last week than the entire Church hierarchy has in the last forty years.
In their pristine, sentimental new order temples of felt banners and
eagles wings and liturgical dancers and altar girls and resurrecifixes
and kisses of peace and lay ministers and Father Bobs and Father Mikes
and social justice, where has the Precious Blood been located? Not on
the supper table and maybe not even in the chalice at the consecration,
given the arrogant sentimentality of these reformers which allowed them
to change Our Lord’s very words to be spoken at the moment of the
consecration of the wine into His Precious Blood. The Great Sacrifice
is back, but not in the novus ordo temples; no, it is on the screen,
placed there with devotion and faith and love by a great artist to be
witnessed by millions of viewers who have forgotten this great gift or
have never been aware of it before.
That Mel Gibson in his subtitling gets the words of Our Lord correct in
his translation of “pro multis” as “for many” shows what a simple task
such precision is. You do not have to be a scholar or a linguist or a
genius to get the translation right. You simply have to love Our Lord
more than you love the praise of the world. The faulty translation of
“for all” in the novus ordo mass shows that the New Church loves its
own ecumania more than it loves the words of Our Lord. And how about
the canard that the “people” will no longer respond to the Mass in
Latin? Oh, no? Well, how about a popular film in Latin and Aramaic? The
voices of “those who know” insisted the “people” would never respond.
The film instantly gives the lie to years of deliberate falsehood and
disinformation coming from the post-Vatican II Church.
There are wonderful touches throughout the film to catch the eyes and
to delight the hearts, not to mention to comfort the souls, of
Traditional Catholics. The Latin language and the correct translation
of “for many” at the Last Supper are only the beginning. How about the
glorious moment when, as the cross is raised up and falls with a
tremendous jolt into place, thus beginning the Great Sacrifice, Mary
Magdalene covers her head with a veil? How about all those who love Our
Lord kneeling before the Great Sacrifice? How about the Blessed Mother
on that first Good Friday coming forward to kiss the feet of Our Lord
as He hangs on the cross, an action re-enacted by millions of Catholics
over the centuries on every Good Friday? And just what is the curious
piece of brown cloth on straps that hangs over the shoulders of the
Good Thief on his cross as he asks Our Lord to remember him when He
comes into His Kingdom?
I have no doubt there are countless other sublime touches from this man
devoted to the Traditional Catholic Faith. I have only seen the film
twice. On a second viewing, the film offered a very different
experience. Not as shell-shocked with the visceral impact of Our Lord’s
profound suffering, I saw new things and experienced different
emotions. I had not seen at my first viewing the dove flying over our
Lord’s head when, with His eye badly bruised, He comes before Pilate
for the first time, a clear parallel to that other bird and that other
eye that appear late in the film, bringing something other than
consolation to the unrepentant thief. This is a work of art and will
demand multiple viewings which, being a great work of art, it will
repay with new insights and new sublimities. (The art histo-rians must
get to work. The number of reminiscences of great paintings of the past
from Grunewald to Caravaggio to Raphael and so on is astonishing.)
As to the non-Catholics who have seen the film or spoken against it, we
have obligations in charity. This is a perfect occasion to explain to
the poor Protestants the connection between the Crucifixion and the
Real Presence. Through his brilliant cross-cutting, Mr. Gibson has
given us all the material we need to bring the point home. We must also
explain the central role of the Blessed Mother in salvation history.
Again, this good Catholic man, this great artist, has done the work for
us. We have an obligation to make clear that the film is obviously not
anti-Semitic. At the same time, we need to understand the central role
of the Jews in God’s providential plan. Just as they unwittingly did
God’s work two thousand years ago, they have played a central role in
turning this film into a worldwide phenomenon that will be seen by
millions of people. Once again, God is using these people; from their
fulmination and their hatred and their rage, He has brought forth great
good. We must try to convert them to the Truth, to accept finally the
Messiah who died for them.
And the novus ordo Catholic Church that with the exception of some good
devout priests has stood silently by and given no support or
encouragement at any point in the production or dissemination of this
great work of Catholic art? I could not help but be struck in both my
viewings by the pompous arrogance of the High Priests who stood by
unmoved, unrepentant, with, in fact, a slight hint of smug
self-satisfaction, as Our Lord was tortured and abused. Could there be
a more obvious parallel to the attitude of our own hierarchy who has
delivered up the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ and stood
silently by with a measure of pompous self-assurance as His Mystical
Body has been abused and humiliated, spat upon and vilified, tortured
and crucified? Surely Solange Hertz is correct when she states that in
our age we are witnessing the Passion of the Church.
To believing Catholics, the disdain and indifference shown by Church
officials toward this film is heartbreaking. From the silence of the
American bishops (with the exception of Bishop McGrath of San Jose who
raised his voice in the heretical statement that the gospels are not
“historical accounts of historical events”) to the farcical fumbling of
Vatican officials over the alleged five words – only five?! –
supposedly uttered by the usually garrulous Pope, the Catholic Church
hierarchy has once again disgraced itself. We must pray that God will
soon end this great spiritual chastisement.
Near the beginning of the film, the director shows Peter denying Our
Lord three times. After the suffering but loving countenance of our
Lord is turned toward Peter and Peter looks into the face of his Master
and Savior, he is overcome with guilt and sorrow. His immediate
response is to go to the Blessed Mother and, falling at her feet, say,
weeping, “I have denied him, Mother.” May one day another Keeper of the
Keys be granted such a moment of revelation and follow in the footsteps
of that first pontiff, for only through such an admission of guilt and
only at the feet of Mary can we hope for the denial of Our Lord to end.
The triumph of Her Immaculate Heart and a period of peace for the world
will follow the full restoration of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Church.
On behalf of all Traditional Catholics, I thank you Mel Gibson for
assisting in the possibility of such a restoration and giving to our
souls much needed hope in this time of weariness and sorrow and trial.
You have reminded us of what we too can expect from the world. “If they
have hated Me,” our Lord says to His disciples in the film, “they will
hate you.” Thank you for making our Lent richer in its true meaning and
in the days to come for helping to make our cross a bit lighter. We
carry it in good Catholic company, in genuine fellowship with you and
with the Suffering Christ.
|
