Vittorio Messori, who you will probably remember as the author of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" (1994), as well as "The Ratzinger Report" (1987), has written an article, after being among the first in Europe to see the final cut version of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".
It looks like the movie is all it was intended to be. Unfortunately, I will most likely not be seeing it. I can't bring myself to monetarily support the work of Mr. Gibson, while his relationship with the Church is ambiguous. If I knew he was in good standing with his bishop, I'd be there in a minute. I know that some have decided to separate the man from his work. In good conscience, I cannot do that.
I can appreciate your position, and it's probably not my place to comment. But, I'm curious. Would your position on viewing it change if the director were Anglican, Lutheran, or in some other way not in full communion?
Please don't misunderstand. I understand your concern over Mr. Gibson's standing, but I intend to see the film (I can't wait), and from the early reviews, it sounds like something the world very much needs. That's something I can support.
If an explicitly religious work were written/directed by a non-Catholic, I would still not see it, but for a different reason.
From past experience, I've found the work of non-Catholic writers/directors often includes scenes that contradict Catholic teaching. Rather than reinforce those views, I prefer not to subject myself to them.
But this particular work was intended to be explicitly Catholic in its interpretation, as well as underlying content, and seems to have achieved that goal quite superbly.
Thus, I hold Mr. Gibson, who claims to be Catholic, to a higher standard. If he, himself, is not in good standing with the Church, then how can I trust he won't use his success to further alienate himself and others from the barque of Peter? That would make me indirectly complicit in schism. I can't see the future, so I exclude the possibility by not supporting it.
With all due respect your arguments don't hold up. The problem with Mel Gibson is that he is a sedevacantist. Indeed that should not be supporter. The interesting thing, though, is everyone from the most liberal to the most conservative in the Church are telling people they love it and to see it. What about the man who played Christ? He is a Catholic in "good" standing. Does he get any points in your book? Do you pay taxes? Well then your taking part in baby killing. I respect your right to not want to the see the movie, but please come up with a better excuse. Your paying money to see a film which is purported to be accurate and reverent. You probably should be more worried about giving money to the theatre than to Mel Gibson.
I've seen the trailer to the movie Paul, and I really feel called to see it. I think for me, I need to see the concrete, "in your face" reality of what my sins have done.
I also want to send a message to Hollywood that there is a huge market for films with a Christian message and I'd love to see some other film makers take on such projects.
Anyone know what happened to the Theresa movie?
Based on my comments in this thread, I've been accused of calumny by TZ, a reader in Tim's Christus Victor blog. Apparently, the charge revolves around my implication that Mr. Gibson may not be in good standing with his bishop.
To make sure there's no misunderstanding, I thought I'd include a copy here of the comment I posted there:
"calumny - the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation" (Merriam-Webster Online)
Maybe it's just my own ignorance, but I thought it was widely known that Mr. Gibson has an "independent chapel" on his own property. Independent, to me, means not affiliated with any diocese. How does stating a widely known fact constitute calumny?
TZ thinks my "standard" is too vague. What he/she misses is that, being "independent", as I understand it, he would not be under any bishop. The "standard" I speak of is obedience to one's bishop, which is supposed to guard against falling into heresy. But, being "independent", there is no one to whom he is accountable; thus no guarantee that his brand of "traditionalism" is in line with Church teaching.