I've already indicated once that I am planning not to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Not finding my view to be terribly popular among other writers, or even among my own parish, I decided to poke around a bit to see if there were any who actually do agree with me. You've probably already guessed that the pickin's out there are mighty slim. But I did find a post by David Morrison, where he quotes Phil Lawler's recent editorial in Catholic World Report. Mr. Lawler explains why he has decided not to see Mr. Gibson's movie. For those of you who don't find my first argument terribly compelling, you might consider this:
"The physical violence of the Passion was an undeniable reality. Jesus was mercilessly tortured. I know that. But I hesitate to dwell on it. Is this cowardice? I hope not. I notice that God, in his wisdom, arranged the affairs of that day so that 11 of the 12 apostles did not witness the violence. And the Gospels, our sure guide, are sparing in details.
There is a reason, I believe, for this decorous treatment of the Passion in Scripture. An individual's pain is a personal, even an intimate affair, which should not be exposed to public view. It is obscene to probe the details of another person's anguish, just as it is obscene to air the details of an act of love. And as we look toward Calvary, where history's greatest suffering was poured out in history's greatest act of love, we might do well to avert our eyes - not in denial of what assuredly took place, but in recognition that we are not prepared to bear it."
[Via Sed Contra]
The lambasting Mr. Lawler received for his views, evidenced by the scattered comments I've read, demonstrates to me that even many Catholics are not attuned to the value of purity as a reverence for mystery. See Bishop Sheen's Three to Get Married for a detailed explanation of that concept. I do happen to agree that seeing too much of Jesus in His reduced state is an analogical equivalent of seeing the details of an act of love.
Do I think there are some who would benefit from seeing the movie? Maybe some agnostics and marginal believers. But as for devout Catholics, I think they should already have a vivid enough picture in their mind what the Passion and Crucifixion looked like. It just may be that, for those who are already vaguely familiar with the details of the story, seeing such a graphic depiction of scene after scene may be too much to bear. Seeing it on the big screen also makes it doubly larger than life. And if it is not too much to bear, maybe it is because we ourselves have been calloused by the violence we regularly encounter in other entertainment.
Why was the movie rated "Restricted"? Is it not because it is too much for children to handle? Recall how, during times of war, one of the most gruesome punishments that can be inflicted upon innocent children is to force them to witness the rape, torture, or murder of their loved ones. Do you think they ever recover from such a nightmare?
When we teach our kids the truths of our faith, we do not sugar-coat the reality that Jesus was hurt very badly, and then put to death. However, the details presented are appropriate for the emotional capacity of the little ones.
But aren't we all supposed to have a child-like sense of modesty? Shouldn't we feel a sense of being overloaded at the sight of Our Lord's torture and death? Think of it this way. Our Lady was present, but do you really think she forced herself to keep her eyes on Jesus at every instant, taking it all in? I'm virtually certain that much of the pain of seeing Him in this state would have been too much for her to bear. She would have covered her eyes often, or buried her head in the chest of St. John, or one of the other women present. Yes, she needed to be there to partake in the events, and in maternal support of her Son; but the same does not apply to us today, two millenia later, in a darkened theater.
As another example, consider the hypothetical death of a loved one. During funeral home visitation, all the family is there in support of one another. They look upon the one who has died, almost so as to help them register the reality of what has taken place. However, at how many funerals do you see people snapping pictures or shooting videos, that the memories might be preserved? I have never seen any. And why is that? Because certain events, that are very personal and very painful, ought to be reserved for the memory alone. Having a graphic depiction, either in still photos or videos, is just too painful to bear, and not terribly appropriate. Contrast this with the joy at a wedding, where camera flashes and videographers dot the landscape. Even our subconscious knows this: joy is to be shared publicly, while coping with grief is intensely personal. Could you ever imagine such a family, ten or twenty years later, where everyone gathers around the TV to watch a funeral, the same way we love to reminisce with wedding videos?
And I think this is why the Church, in her wisdom over the centuries, regarding images of Our Lord, whether in pictorial form, statues, or Crucifix Corpuses, has refrained from representing His sufferings in gruesome detail. Sufficient detail to register the reality of the event is all that is warranted.
Some Saints have received special graces to dwell on the details of those sufferings, and we sometimes get a glimpse of those meditations through private revelation. But remember, that is not what made them Saints. Those visions and revelations were intensely personal, and they were granted as a result of heroic sanctity, so that the Saints themselves might receive special consolations for the sufferings they had already chosen to endure. Note that the visions and revelations were not the cause of their sanctity, which is rather a matter of the grace-inspired "fiat" that comes from the will alone. Similarly today, watching this video will shock people, but it will not turn anyone into a saint.
Are you willing to take on the extra responsibility that comes with knowledge of the intimate details of Our Lord's suffering and death? I know I am not, and I believe it may even be presumptuous to want to probe so deeply into such details. God gives these graces to chosen victim souls, whom He knows are willing to suffer as Christ did. To whom much is given; much also is expected in return. (Luke 12:48)
Ask yourself why it is you feel the desire to partake in this spectacle. Is it for the sensationalism? Is it to strengthen your faith? What do you hope to gain from it? Yes, I too am overjoyed at what promises to be the first widely-available movie in decades to accurately depict our Catholic faith. But I will not subject myself to it, because I believe it threatens to further de-sensitize and alienate me from the virtue of modesty.
Instead, I would readily admit that I have work to do in my quest for holiness. Through solid spiritual direction, I already know the things I need to do to get there. No audio/visual shock treatment is going to get me any more motivated than I already know I need to be, except maybe for a short time. I just need to get busy and do it.
Paul, Your points in this post and in your response to my original comment are well-taken. I'd not considered the issues you raised in the latter. I have considered many of the points raised in your second post, and I still feel a strong desire to see this movie.
For one thing, while the Gospels do not dwell on the details, the early Christians knew full well what a crucifixion entailed. I'm certain they had a viceral reaction to what our Lord suffered. I do not. Whether that's fortunate or not, I can't say. I do hope that by watching the movie, I'll understand much more fully His sacrifice. I will not be attending with any prurient interest. I'm certain I'll be averting my eyes frequently. I'm intending to go alone because I'll likely be sobbing throughout. I'm not expecting a pleasant evening. So, why go? Simply to have a greater understanding of what He went through for me. And, as someone who struggles with my own sinfulness more than most, I hope this results in a permanently strenghtened resolve to do nothing to offend Him. Like many modern Westerners, I'm strongly visual. I imagine many of the images from this film will be impossible to forget. And, once seen, I hope these images change me and strengthen me for the rest of my race.
Bill, I think you have some good points. The apostles had probably seen other floggings and crucifixions - we just have no idea. I think it is almost a penance to see this movie and you explained it very well.