I was wondering how many people here were planning to go see "The Passion of the Christ". If you have children, are you planning to take them to see it. Also I thought this might be a good thread for people who have seen the movie to post their thoughts and feelings.

Please note, I do not want this thread to turn into a discussion about Mel Gibson, his views, his father's views, the Latin rite, etc. Let's stick to the movie itself, ok folks?

Well, as for me, I very much want to see the movie. Our church has actually reserved the theater for one showing. Unfortunately I can't go then because of my son's (possibly last for the season) basketball game, but my husband and I plan to see it sometime the first week it is out. I would definitely take the older two kids (teenagers) to see it, but I'm not sure about the 12 year old. My kids don't watch a lot of graphic stuff, so I may see it first without the kids and then take them to see it. That way I will know ahead of time what to expect for them.

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004

Answers

to the top!

-- -- (bump@bumper.com), February 23, 2004.

Definitely going to see it. Hope to get out in the opening weekend as well. My oldest is just shy of three, so we won't be taking our kids.

Very excited, Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004.

My children are ages 9, 11 & 12. We are going (along with other parishoners and school children in grades 4-12) on Ash Wednesday to see the movie.

I hear many different opinions from people on whether they think it's OK to take young children or not. I did not let anyone else's opinion influence mine in this case. I had always planned on letting my children see it, from the first day I heard about it. People are worried about it being too unsettling for children because of the graphic nature of the movie, and while I'm not advocating taking a 3 or 4 year old to see it, each child is different, so the decision should be made according to the discretion of the parent.

I have thought about this much, and while I realize it may be upsetting for my children........well, shouldn't it be? Shouldn't they be appalled at the suffering Christ had to endure for our sins? Shouldn't they cower in their seats over the brutality of what He suffered for our sins?

I guess I feel that no matter what we do, sometimes we can talk ourselves blue in the face trying to explain to our children the enormity of Christ's sufferings. And why he suffered. Sometimes we do this without even having a clue ourselves how enormous it was. Visual representations stay with us a long time, and can bring a message straight home, that words would not be able to express.

So, yes.....my children will see it. And I hope it makes them cringe in their seats. I hope it makes them cry. I hope it gives them a sense of remorse and deep appreciation that they have never experienced before. I hope it brings the message home. But mostly, I hope it teaches them true Christian charity and love.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 23, 2004.

Good post Isabel. Well said!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.

Isabel,
I hope you can handle the years of nightmares it might cause. I heartily encourage adults to go see it. I don't think kids need to witness a crucifixtion to find faith.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004.

Well, they wouldn't actually be witnessing it, they will be watching someone's idea of what took place back then, complete with zooming in/out, computer graphics, etc. etc.

You can't be a witness if you weren't actually there.

As to whether they should see it or not, based on violence, well, if they go to public school they are no doubt exposed to much worse (violence) and that with no redeeming educational value. I do think parents should see it first, then decide about the children.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 23, 2004.

I think Isabel's point is that each child is different and it's up to the parent to know whether the child is up to the film or not. I like her point about how people today don't really appreciate what Christ had to endure for us. It was a horrible, excruciating, humiliating, painful death. Most don't or can't fathom the agony. I hope the film will help to bring this point home.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.

I'm extremely surprised that you're allowed to take children as young as 9 into the cinema to watch this film. In the UK The Passion of Christ has been given an '18' rating, meaning adults over the age of 18 only. Ireland has a rating of 15.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 23, 2004.

I think Isabel's point is that each child is different and it's up to the parent to know whether the child is up to the film or not.

With all due respect, American children are not use to suffering and death. Children under 17 should not be shown this movie, and I think some young American adults over 17 should not see it either. The audience this movie was made for was for mature adults. We should encourage the intended audience to see it and much good will come of this movie. Kids should see something that teaches the sermon on the mount and the resurrection with just a touching on the crucifixtion.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004.

youre kidding about the children in america having no experience with death, right bill?

because last time I checked the average child has witnessed more than one thousand murders and or violent deaths on television by the time they turn 18. So maybe a bit of familial discussion coupled with seeing this death will bring a bit of meaning to them...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 23, 2004.

I totally agree with you Bill. I fully intend seeing the film myself, but wouldn't dream of taking my children.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 23, 2004.

Bill, even if all children watch is the news, they get exposed to a lot of violence.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 23, 2004.

GT,
I don't know about your kids, but my kids don't watch the news.... and most of my Scouts don't watch the news. American kids are pretty sheltered... correction: they are VERY sheltered!

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004.

Does anyone know what the movie is rated?

In the US it is rated R

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004.

I just bought advanced tickets, its sellign out fast.

I will se eit sunday, I will say no more till then. Also, since i have no children as of yet, I shant be takign them...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2004.

I have never posted here before but have been reading the forum for months. I have five kids, ages 16-10. We will all be going to see the movie tomorrow. Sorry to say, I think most kids are exposed to a lot of violence on TV and movies already, and seeing this movie will not cause a great deal of nightmares. I predict that kids, (at least kids of the same age as my own) will be moved. This movie may be gory, but it will be meaningful as opposed to the gratuitous violence that infests movies and TV today. My kids have been looking forward to this movie for a long time.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), February 23, 2004.

Welcome Brian,

I have 3 sons 10,7 and 5. I will likely see the film solo because its hard to get a babysitter. If it meets my approval I would take the 10 year old. I think that since my son fully understands (he is baptized and confirmed) the story of Christ it will only be a positive experience for him.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

We're going to see the film on Ash Wednesday. We're going to wait until it comes out on video to show it to the kids, so we can take time, pause it, answer questions, etc.

They're 6, 4, 4, & 7 months. They will see the movie.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 23, 2004.

Bible Students Give "The Passion Of The Christ" Positive Reviews

Any time a book becomes a movie, its fans are among the toughest critics. So what happens when the book is the Bible? NY1's Jennifer Rainville spoke with some people who read the Gospels religiously, and who saw Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" Monday.

CONTINUE:

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html? topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=37556

-- BLIPMASTER (BLIP@BLIP.BLIP), February 23, 2004.

It is good it is in Aramaic, Jesus language.

This helps because many think (Catholics) the Bible is in Latin , or (Orthodox) in Greek. Protestants think is the English from the King James, 1611.

I object to the personification of the Devil in places it is not mentioned in scrupture.(A woman portrays him).

The Christian Yahwist / The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 23, 2004.

Who told you Catholics believe the language of Jesus and His people was Latin or Greek, Elpidio? That isn't so. And, for that matter, there is reason to believe Christ spoke at least SOME Greek. Much of the Holy Land of His era was Hellenized to some extent. But we've always been taught in our churches Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic.

____________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.

I do agree that each child is different, and it isn't necessarily the child's age that should make the decision for the parent. My 5 year old is still into Blue's Clues and the like and is very much not ready for it. My 9 year old is very tender, and has bad dreams often and should not see it yet. The 12 year old? He's probably ready, but I know that I would feel better screening it first. I very much like the idea of watching it on video (when it comes out) for the younger kids (when they ARE ready) to pause and talk about it.

My children will all, eventually (even if it's later on video), see it. For me, I'm going to take a LOT of tissues! I get all teary when I say the sorrowful mysteries; I can only begin to imagine what I'm going to be like when I have visual images of what Christ went through. I've seen other films about Jesus (like Jesus of Nazareth), but I think this is going to be much more visual.

Oh, Jesus, I love you so much!!

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004.

We're taking the two older ones, 8 and 11, but probably on a second trip. I think they need to see what reality really consists of; better now than when it's too late.

This is interesting.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2004.

Hi Emerald,

Yes that is an interesting website about the Divine Mercy, but I'm not sure about it's relevance to the movie. Now if it was a website about Anne Catherine Emmerich, it would make a little more sense to me. (But then again, I just got done working and my brain is mush, so perhaps, as much as I love the Divine Mercy, I missed the point.) Here is my attempt to a link that I think is interesting about the movie. link to article

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

Forgive me, but...

Oh my, I did it (linked an article! I'm good at other computer stuff, but this html is new to me!) There seems to be a lot of, what else can I call it, spiritual warfare, surrounding this movie. It doesn't suprise me though. Of course Satan would want to stop or minimize this movie! The above linked article has a lot of good information about the "behind the scenes" kind of things.

Emerald, forgive the slight diversion here, but how is that beautiful baby boy?! Been busy here, because boys grow up and play BASKETBALL (not to say that girls don't too!) and that keeps a mom busy! I've heard of soccer moms, but I guess I'm a basketball mom (what else could I be since I'm from the land of the Hoosiers (Indiana, but I went to Purdue, not IU)) Anyway, I will pray for you and yours at adoration tomorrow night. Being a parent of 5 is a challenge! I hope all is going well. And sometime we MUST talk LOTR. But that's for another thread.....

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

One thing I hope Mel Gibson does next with the success of this movie is to do a prequel (it may be a PG or PG13 rating).

If Mel Gibson wanted to show the last 12 hours if Jesus Christ with all it’s graphic violence, then he can show the rest of the story. Jesus birth, his work and his miracles, obviously the rest of the New Testament. Get the whole Catholic theme going, you got to show the good and the bad and the reasons why he is so Holy.

-- JohnQ_Public (none@none.none), February 24, 2004.

First we had Faith. Now here is Hope. Another one carping about religion and doctrine? What will Charity say?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.

I'd like to see it this weekend. Not sure if I can get out of the house thought. Parents have been coming down pretty hard latly over my grades. Oh well. I'll see it when I can.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

Reviews by the handful are now being covered on the Internet, of The Passion. It's important to clarify something in favor of the way Gibson has depicted the Passion of Our Lord.

It's understood his screenplay for the film is taken from what's related in the four gospels; which can be taken as the outline with dialogue. Those narratives of the evangelists are succinct & do not serve as graphic descriptions.

However, Gibson's script is well-served (from my point of view) by the work of Clemens Brentano, who transcribed for Anna Caterina Emmerich the entire panoramic view of these horrifying events. Sister Emmerich saw, we would presume, (so would Mel Gibson) just what the bystanders at Golgotha saw. This is what the film depicts. Now many viewers are blaming Gibson for going ''over the top''. They suggest he elected to make the scenes disgracefully violent and revolting. But he didn't. He used more than one ''outline'' to write his script.

Anne Catherine Emmerich described the pitiable condition of Our Holy Saviour hanging on the cross in death, in her vision; -- Covered entirely from head to feet in blood. Not one inch of his sacred body was uninjured in some way, from His holy brow to his feet.

She saw in these visions the Agony in the Garden; Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin, with all the accumulated blows He suffered there and subsequently, as He was brutally scourged at the pillar. Nothing Gibson has filmed departs from this visual description. It really must be as Christ suffered it.

No one has an obligation to accept Emmerich's testimony as biblical truth. But for those who do; and Mel Gibson does; there can be no way to ''sanitize'' the passion and death of Jesus Christ. To those who might be indisposed to watch such graphic cruelty on film; I would just say: Read about it in the Bible. Don't see the film. Jesus has no need for our sensitivity about His agony. He offers Himself gladly to save all sinners. We need Him more than we need a movie of Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 24, 2004.

The USA will pour out a flood of tears beginning tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, for the suffering and death of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (uhhh, christian, don't forget the kleenex.)

-- (P@ss.ion), February 24, 2004.

Well said, Eugene. I have begun reading The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the first time. I am amazed at the amount of detail that Anne Catherine saw. Anyone, who would truly desire to understand what Christ went through, would do well to read this book.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 24, 2004.

It's been a very long time since I came on to thise site, but I knew I could find interesting conversation here about the movie, "The Passion."

I can't wait to see it. I know I will be touched very deeply by this movie, renewed spiritually, humbled, and touched by God in ways I don't even know yet and I hope "everyone" who sees it may be touched in a very powerful way.

The timing for this movie is perfect. I will not get into Mel Gibson here, but I do believe that he was guided by the Holy Spirit to make this film. It certainly was not an easy film to make and I do believe that God is talking to the entire world through this movie and I hope all those who go to see it listen, really listen (and that includes me)

As for children, each parent knows their child and what their children can handle. I think if I had young children I would go to see if by myself first and then decide for my children as Mel Gibson said tonight...it is very violent, very graphic, and he would advise parents to think carefully about taking their children to see it.

Funny, though, I don't ever remember hearing the news media, Hollywood, critics ever making a stink about children seeing violent movies when Rambo was out, or one of "Arnold's" movies, or "Scream" (I think it was called Scream) - lots of horror movies have been made and no one flinched an eye about kids going to see them...but, when it comes to the crucifixation of Jesus...all of a sudden viloence and gore are taboo. I would not want my children to have nightmares about Jesus. I think it depends on the child's personality, sensitivity, maturity and emotional make-up.

It was nice visiting with all of you and I will be interested in your comments once all of you have seen the movie.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 24, 2004.

BTW, what I meant when I said it is 'perfect timing' for this movie, I was referring to the state our world is in today. We do not need to see a movie about Christ to know Him, we already do.

However, there are going to be lots of people going to see this movie purely out of curiousity and who knows how they will be touched by it. Only God knows how many people's lives will change for the better as a result of this movie - some may return to the church, some may repent of their sinful ways, some may convert. There were lots of obstacles put in the path of this movie and yet here it is..I believe Satan did not want this film to come out, and certainly does not want it to be a success...just look how many souls can be won? Just an opinion.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 24, 2004.

Fr Pontifex: Reflections on "The Passion of the Christ"

Recently I was invited to a private screening of the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" directed by Mel Gibson. Most of us are familiar with this movie for it has certainly received its share of media time, shrouded in a cloud of controversy and scrutiny. I truly was excited to get a glimpse of this movie, and also to hear Mel Gibson speak about the film, since he was to be present at the screening. It took place at Willow Creek Church, which is a non- denominational group in South Barrington, IL. There were close to five thousand people in attendance. (This is no small facility.) The screening was made possible through a group called Outreach Ministries and Icon Productions. Most of those in attendance were Pastors, and those involved in Ministries of all sorts. There were not many Priests around, although I did happen to run into a few classmates of mine from Chicago.

I did not find the subtitles a distraction at all. In fact they were used very well, and only present when absolutely necessary. The use of the other languages, which are Aramaic and Latin, did give this movie a heightened sense of mystery and awe for me. In his interview after the screening, Mel Gibson used an example to explain why the use of another language. He said that if you want to make a movie about Vikings, you can have the characters dressed as scary Vikings, and have a huge ship come to land in the middle of the night. But if they jump off the boat and start speaking English, then you don’t find yourself scared of them anymore. Many people laughed at his comments. It certainly made sense to me. A stronger sense of mystery and connectedness with the Passion was made possible in this way.

As the movie began, I found myself motionless and fixed intently on the screen. I remained that way for the duration of the film. The movie depicts the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus. From the start it is a very intense movie. It begins in the darkness of the Garden of Gethsemani, as Jesus struggles and prays to accept his Passion. The evil one is there to tempt him and utter words of discouragement. In so many ways it fleshes out what it really must have been like for Jesus as he agonized and prayed. It then dawned on me, “This would be a great way to pray the sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary.” I pulled my rosary out of my pocket very quietly and began to pray the sorrowful mysteries along with the movie. For me, it was a very moving experience. The movie progressed right along with me as I contemplated the life of Christ through the eyes of our Blessed Mother in my heart.

The movie stays true to the Gospels. As Mel Gibson has said in other interviews the Gospels are the primary and most important source for this depiction. He also used the "The Dolorus Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" a book of personal reflections and visions by Anne Catherine Emmerich as a source as well. I can assure you that the inspiration and content that was used from Emmerich’s reflections does nothing but enhance the experience with this movie. In his interview, Mel Gibson said that this book was good for filler and served as a good tool in order to “read between the lines.” There are small dialogues found in this movie that are not found in scripture, but possibly could have taken place and help to flesh out the Passion of Christ in a very profound way. For instance, there is a scene after Peter has denied Jesus three times, that he encounters Mary. Mary comes toward Peter to find out what has happened to her son and as she tries to embrace Peter, he exclaims, “No don’t, I am not worthy!” He goes on to explain to Mary, whom he affectionately calls Mother that he has denied the Lord. It is a very powerful scene. And there are many, many, more, but I don’t want to spoil it for you.

In general just let me say, that this movie touched me in such a way that I will never look at the Passion of Our Lord Jesus in the same way. The two realities that I cling to in my spiritual life were connected to the Passion of Jesus in this movie. The first is the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Mel Gibson, brings to the screen very cleverly the connection between the Last Supper, and the crucifixion. It is of course a connection that we experience every time that we come to Mass. We come to the table of the Lord Jesus to share in his meal, which at the same time is an altar where the one Passion of Jesus Christ is represented to us. As we surrender our lives and pour out our hearts upon this altar, Jesus then in turn pours out to us his precious body and blood to unite us as one. The second reality that is brought to life, is a true devotion to Mary. In my past reflections about Mary, I could always envision her intense love and faithfulness to her Son. She was with him throughout his childhood, looked for him desperately when he was lost, accompanied him through his public ministry, encountered him on the way to Golgotha, and stood by him as he was crucified. She was certainly faithful. However, this movie draws out a reality that makes our devotion to Mary as Catholics much more meaningful. Mary was not only faithful to Jesus during his passion, but she gave her Son strength, in a very profound maternal and spiritual way. So for us, as we commit our lives to the mission of Jesus Christ in this world, as we make His passion our passion we should keep Mary close to us for the same reason. We draw strength from her maternal love as we carry our cross, and she leads us into closer union with Jesus.

I certainly did not find this movie to be anti-Semitic in anyway. In fact the movie left me with a profound sense of the brokenness of humanity and the culpability of us all in the death of Jesus. The only reason that I can gather that there is so much controversy about this movie, is the same reason that there has been so much controversy about Jesus Christ since his birth. He is the light that shines in the darkness. Wherever there is conflict, struggle, and a stirring going on, look close, because that is where you will find the truth and love of Jesus Christ.

This movie is certainly violent, but in actuality the events were very violent. As Mel Gibson has stated, the movie is probably nowhere near as violent and gruesome as the actual sufferings of Christ. The movie does have an “R” rating and therefore parents should use discretion as to whether or not their child is ready to see this. Gibson seemed to think that most children over the age of twelve would be able to handle it.

In conclusion, I think that this movie gives us an opportunity to enter into the season of Lent with a deeper attitude of penance and gratitude for our Lord. The Passion brings the viewer into an intense and personal encounter with Jesus, and I pray that many hearts will be touched as it is released on February 25th, Ash Wednesday.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 24, 2004.

I agree MaryLu. What I keep thinking is something like this: ck makes a connection with the Passion and of course the Sorrowful Mysteries. In a way, I personally think this movie may be in itself an act of Divine Mercy (that's the connection ck) because it gives people an opportunity to have visually provided for them those same sorts of images that the good people of the Church have had to really try hard to meditate on and understand.

But right now, not with a lot of effort, but with all of what, $8 or so. Maybe the Holy Ghost is begging people to understand, making it as easy and as available as possible for them to obtain.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2004.

Hi Mary Lu I often wondered where you got to, nice to see you back. Hope youre well, Peace and love.

Im unsure if this site has been linked but it contains many many excelent reviews etc of the movie and Gene a commentary on Anne Catherine Emmerich .

http://www.catholic.net/beauty_and_truth/template_channel.phtml? channel_id=4

Looking forward to it as well if it ever gets out where I am.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Hi, Marylu

I hope all is well with you and your family.[I bet your pup is close to two years old now?

God bless you and M.J.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 25, 2004.

Hi Emerald, David and Kiwi! :)

So nice to "hear" your voices. David, you remembered I had a pup? Yes, she is nearly 2 years old already. She will have her second birthday in May and we are enjoying her so much. She brings much joy and laughter into our hearts and home.

As for the movie, I am so disheartned by the reviews from the critics. I couldn't believe what I read in the papers today and heard on the media. All they focus on is the graphics, the violence, and Mel Gibson blaming the Jews for Jesus' death. They don't get the point and that is very sad.

One critic said she couldn't wait to get out of the theater and that children should not be allowed to see such horror.

Ironically, the most gruesome, violent, brutual show on TV, filled with the F word over and over again, probably got the most awards for any show on TV - I am talking about the Sopranos. In one episode a man's head was cut off and put in a bowling bag, another episode a pregnant woman was killed in a most brutal way and on and on and on. I watched it twice and that was enough for me. The show contains adultry, salty (to say the least) language, greed, violence (to say the least) drugs, lying, stealing, and the most horrid, graphic scenes ever seen on TV and yet the critics "acclaim" this show and Hollywood awards it many times over.

Interesting, isn't it?

Have a good day every one and may Our Lord walk with you this lenten season.

MaryLu

Yet, a true movie about the crucifixation of Christ is mocked.

I truly don't understand this. I have seen many movies about the Holocust with horrible graphics, movies about slavery where the slaves were whipped, hung, tortured, graphic movies about WWII and they are acclaimed by the critics. Why is the brutal crucifixation of Christ being given such horrible reviews.

Mel Gibson is in my prayers. I think he truly thought he was doing a good thing and I believe he was guided by the Spirit to make this movie.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 25, 2004.

Shame on me....Crucifixion...C r u c i f i x i o n...crucifixion...no spell check here and my spelling has deteriorated since using the computer.

The following is just one example of reviews for horror movies that our kids see...amazing!

Stage Fright

Michele Soavi made his directorial debut with this film. Stage Fright is about a group of people who are working on a play. They are a group of no-name actors trying to make it big, and they see this play as their big break. Soon, a killer breaks loose from an insane asylum and heads to the studio. There he dresses up as the killer in the play, locks the doors with no key to be found, and he kills them one by one. Now it's a battle for survival as the actors try to find the key to the doors and escape before this killer makes them meet their brutal death.

I had heard so much about Michele Soavi, but I had never seen any of his films. This was my first experience in his films and I was pleasently surprised. Stage Fright starts off slowly with the actors trying to work in the play, but when a girl gets hurt, her and her friend go to the hospital and when they come back a killer has followed them. The director of the play really wants to get this play going, and when a girl is brutally murdered outside, he locks everyone inside the building, thinking they are safe, so they can finish working on the play. Little did he know that the killer is already inside and the one person who knows where the key is has just been murdered. The final 45 minutes of this film are extremely violent and gory. We get arms cut off, heads cut off, people torn in half, people cut apart by chainsaws, pick-axe through the face, etc. Michele Soavi really knows how to make a good slasher, and the killer really made me believe he was insane. When the killer sets the stage up with the dead bodies, I couldn't help but think about just how crazy Michele Soavi made this killer. So, check out this film if you're a slasher fan. It's an Italian horror film, and is a "really good one." I give this film a 7 out of 10.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 25, 2004.

That’s why I tell people to cancel their Cable/Sat service and send a letter of protest until they tone down the T&A being shown on TV.

Note: Your $45 - $60+ dollars a month contributes to their wayward programming.

I have said it before on other message boards… Your subscription to cable/sat television gives these deviants the basic operating cost for their network, and with advertisers paying the difference for new programming such as the “The Shield” on the FX Channel, or the New “Battlestar Galactica” on the Sci Fi Channel… it’s no wonder why they always want to push more Sex and violence for higher ratings.

Remember paid TV (Cable/Sat) has three types of programming. 1) Basic = local channels. 2) Standard = Cable channels (such as FX and Sci Fi) 3) Premium = movies channels (such as HBO and Showtime)

Cut either the service all together or take a less expensive package. Your subscription is all they need to produce garbage with no redeeming value to get more rating to show advertisers, to get more money.

Hit them in the pockets, $money$

>> Ironically, the most gruesome, violent, brutal show on TV, filled with the F word over and over again, probably got the most awards for any show on TV - I am talking about the Sopranos. In one episode a man's head was cut off and put in a bowling bag, another episode a pregnant woman was killed in a most brutal way and on and on and on. I watched it twice and that was enough for me. The show contains adultery, salty (to say the least) language, greed, violence (to say the least) drugs, lying, stealing, and the most horrid, graphic scenes ever seen on TV and yet the critics "acclaim" this show and Hollywood awards it many times over.

-- JohnQ_Public (none@none.none), February 25, 2004.

Greetings world: Many know of what Jesus went through and why, yet they because of religion know not Jesus. This portrayal of the death of Jesus, is a reminder that religion nor traditions save, but faith in Jesus Christ. As Jesus declared it is finished, the work of salvation. When one absorbs of Gods Holy Spirit through hungering for Jesus Christ, they are transformed, not by ashes, nor images, nor works headed by traditions, but by a personal intimant encounter with God, being born again, these are they who follow not man, nor an earthly priest, but these are they who follow the shepards voice. Bewatre many shall come claiming they are the Christ, how do you know they are not, they shall lead you into traditions and a works based belief, no man shall be saved by works, for it by grace ye are saved.

-- Passion for Jesus is the way (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), February 25, 2004.

if the above nameless poster can back all of that he just said up with scripture then I'll give serious thought to forsaking catholicism. Just a friendly challenge...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 25, 2004.

I just saw the "Passion of Christ" this afternoon. The Holy Spirit guided the creation of this movie. The movie is BEYOND words.

-- (Joseph_MT5@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

I just heard on the radio that a lady in her 50's stopped breathing while watching a screening of "The Passion of the Christ". She was rushed to the hospital; she died.

My prayers are with her. I sense overtones of Dismas at the cross with Christ. No, not the movie, the faith in Christ that saves.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 25, 2004.

Regarding works (from the KJV):

James 2 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone

James 2 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Matthew 5 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Regarding religion: Christ set up a church on earth.

Matthew 16 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

He empowered his Apostles with the power of forgiveness of sins:

John 20 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

He then ordered the Head of the Church (Peter) to care for his earthly lambs (us).

John 21

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep

Christ told Peter three times. This was either to emphasize the request or was to point out that Peter denied Him thrice or both.

I am honored to be joining the Holy Catholic Church with Her traditions.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 25, 2004.

good article by theologian Michael Novak: Passion Play

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

Knowing the emotional reaction adults are having at the viewing of this movie, I find it disturbing that so many parents are wanting to expose their children to it at such young ages. Adults who love Jesus with all their heart and fully appreciate what He suffered for us are understandably reluctant to want to see the violence in close- up, full-color shots like this movie portrays. It's disturbing and traumatic. Why not show them the Jesus of Nazareth movie? It depicts the Passion of Christ as well, without the front row seat, and it also shows the whole life and resurrection of Jesus so it places the Passion in context for them.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), February 26, 2004.

NYPOST story

'Passion' Opening Draws Large Crowds

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_THE_PASSION? SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

A woman in Wichita, Kan., collapsed during the film's final, bloody crucifixion scene. While people were helping the woman, identified as 57-year-old Peggy Law Scott, the lights were turned on and moviegoers were ushered out. She later died at a hospital. No cause of death was immediately given.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/PASSION-REF.html

-- news stories (noemail@this.site), February 26, 2004.

People die on cruise ships all the time, it never makes the news. I doubt this is the first person to die in a movie, yet here it is NewsWorthy. Another Hollywood editorial, IMO.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 26, 2004.

Last night in conversation with my good wife, I recalled some words spoken by Ann Catherine Emmerich. In her writings is recorded-- with regards to the visions being documented for her by the Pilgrim (Brentano)-- ''My story is not likely to have much effect on people during your life and mine; nor for many, many years to come. But one day in the distant future, all of what you're recording about my visions will become a powerful force for the Church.''

I paraphrase from memory. But the gist of it was, the holy nun's visions would be brought to great fruition with time. During those days, as she was dictating them, she expected nothing but controversy to result from them. And, that's what happened.

Now-- entering a 3rd millennium, we see much of what she ''saw'' depicted in state of the art cinematic power. She is definitely given credit by the film's producer-director, Mel Gibson.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2004.

Dave,

I understand what you are saying. I saw Jesus of Nazareth when I waz fairly young, and there were two places that really upset me, the scene where the soldiers come to kill all the baby boys, and the crucifixion. Obviously these scenes in that movie are not as graphic, and they still upset me that much. So that's why I'm concerned about the children, and am just not sure about the 12 year old, and I guess the more I hear, I'm concerned now about the older ones. I guess I just need to see it first.

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

I wish everyone could read what this rabbi has to say about the movie, The Passion and Mel Gibson. It is quite long, but worth reading:

E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Print Version

September 26, 2003, 9:36 a.m. Protesting Passion What happened to "artistic freedom"?

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Never has a film aroused such hostile passion so long prior to its release as has Mel Gibson's Passion. Many American Jews are alarmed by reports of what they view as potentially anti-Semitic content in this movie about the death of Jesus, which is due to be released during 2004. Clearly the crucifixion of Jesus is a sensitive topic, but prominent Christians who previewed it, including good friends like James Dobson and Michael Novak who have always demonstrated acute sensitivity to Jewish concerns, see it as a religiously inspiring movie, and refute charges that it is anti-Semitic. While most Jews are wisely waiting to see the film before responding, others are either prematurely condemning a movie they have yet to see or violating the confidentiality agreements they signed with Icon Productions.

As an Orthodox rabbi with a wary eye on Jewish history which has an ominous habit of repeating itself, I fear that these protests, well- intentioned though some may be, are a mistake. I believe those who publicly protest Mel Gibson's film lack moral legitimacy. What is more, I believe their actions are not only wrong but even recklessly ill-advised and shockingly imprudent. I address myself to all my fellow Jews when I say that your interests are not being served by many of those organizations and self-appointed defenders who claim to be acting on your behalf. Just ask yourself who most jeopardizes Jewish safety today, people acting in the name of Islam or Christianity?

ARE THERE NO JEWS IN BROOKLYN? For an explanation of why I believe that those Jews protesting Passion lack moral legitimacy we must take ourselves back in time to the fall of 1999. That was when Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum presented a show called Sensation. It featured, from the collection of British Jew Charles Saatchi, several works which debased Catholicism including Chris Ofili's dung-bedecked Madonna.

You may wonder why I highlight the Jewish ethnicity of the players in the Brooklyn Museum saga. My reason for doing so is that everyone else recognized that they were Jewish and there is merit in us knowing how we ourselves appear in the eyes of those among whom we live. This is especially true on those sad occasions when we violate what ancient Jewish wisdom commends as the practice of Kiddush HaShem, which is to say, conducting our public affairs in a way best calculated to bring credit upon us as a group. Maintaining warm relations with our non-Jewish friends is a traditional Jewish imperative and the raison d'être of the organization I serve, Toward Tradition.

This was not the first time that Arnold Lehman had chosen to offend Catholics. While he was director of the Baltimore Museum, in a display of gross insensitivity to that city's Catholics, he screened Hell's Angel, a film denouncing Mother Teresa as a religious extremist and depicting her in obscenely uncomplimentary and ghoulish terms. I am sorry to have to tell you that no Jewish organizations protested this gratuitous insult of a universally respected Catholic icon.

Almost every Christian organization angrily denounced the vile bigotry sponsored by the Brooklyn Museum. Especially prominent was William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a good friend who has always stood firmly with Jews in the fight against genuine anti- Semitism, yet now, in his fight against anti-Catholicism, he appealed to Jewish organizations in vain. Almost every Christian denomination helped vigorously protest the assault that the Brooklyn Museum carried out against the Catholic faith in such graphically abhorrent ways. Even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed his outrage by trying to withhold money from the museum. Where was the Jewish expression of solidarity against such ugliness? Only a small group of Orthodox Jews joined their fellow Americans in protest at this literal defilement of Christianity with elephant feces. And were other Jews silent? No, unfortunately not. In actuality a small but disproportionately vocal number of them were defending the Brooklyn Museum and its director in the name of artistic freedom.

Here are a few of the names that were prominently defending the Brooklyn Museum's flagrant anti-Christianism during fall 1999. Norman Siegel and Arthur Eisenberg of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Steven R. Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union, and lawyer Floyd Abrams, cousin of Elliott Abrams who holds the position of top adviser on Israel-related matters in President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Although at synagogues and around dinner tables revulsion at the Sensation exhibit was widespread, not very many Jews publicly supported our Catholic friends in the time of their pain.

NOT EVEN TEMPTATION... You may also remember Martin Scorsese's 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ. Then, too, almost every Christian denomination protested Universal's release of a movie so slanderous that had it been made about Moses, or say, Martin Luther King Junior, it would have provoked howls of anger from the entire country. As it was, Christians were left to defend their faith quite alone other than for one solitary courageous Jew, Dennis Prager. Most Americans knew that Universal was run by Lew Wasserman. Most Americans also knew Lew's ethnicity. Perhaps many now wonder why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?

When the Weinstein brothers, through their Miramax films (named after their parents, Mira and Max Weinstein,) distributed Priest in 1994, Catholics were again left to protest this unflattering depiction of their faith alone while many Jewish organizations proclaimed the primacy of artistic freedom. Surely Jewish organizations would carry just a little more moral authority if they routinely protested all attacks on faith, not only those troubling to Judaism.

Oddly enough, Jewish organizations did find one movie so offensive as to warrant protest. It was Disney's Aladdin that was considered, by Jews, to be needlessly offensive to Arabs! It makes no sense at all for Jews to make a big fuss about a gentle lampooning of Arabia in a cartoon, while ignoring intentional and hurtful insults in major movies against people who have demonstrated genuine friendship toward us.

Now I do have one possible explanation for why one might consider it more important to protest Passion. It is this: In Europe, anti- Semitic slander frequently resulted in Catholic mobs killing Jews. Our hypersensitivity has a long and painful background of real tragedy. In any event, Jewish moral prestige would stand taller if we were conspicuous in protesting movies that defame any religion. Furthermore, opponents of Passion argue that this movie might cause a backlash against the Jewish community. Yet when so-called art really does encourage violence, for Jewish spokesmen, artistic freedom seems to trump all other concerns.

Here is what I mean: During the Nineties, record companies run by well-known executives including Michael Fuchs, Gerald Levin, and David Geffen produced obscene records by artists like Geto Boys and Ice-T that advocated killing policemen and raping and murdering women. In spite of congressional testimony showing that these songs really did influence teenage behavior, only William J. Bennett and C. DeLores Tucker, head of the National Political Congress of Black Women, protested Time Warner. During that decade of shockingly hateful music that incited violence, our Jewish organizations only protested Michael Jackson's song "They Don't Care About Us" and the rap group Public Enemy's single "Swindler's Lust," claiming that these songs were anti-Semitic. It is ignoble to ignore the wrongs done to others while loudly deploring those done to us.

In truth however, even though Catholics did kill Jews in Europe, I do not believe that the often sad history of Jews in Europe is relevant now. Why not? Because in Europe, Catholic Church officials wielded a rapacious combination of ecclesiastical and political power with which they frequently incited illiterate mobs to acts of anti-Jewish violence. In America, no clergyman secures political power along with his ordination certificate, and in America, if there are illiterate and dangerous thugs, Christianity is a cure, not the cause. In America, few Jews have ever been murdered, mugged, robbed, or raped by Christians returning home from church on Sunday morning. America is history's most philo-Semitic country, providing the most hospitable home for Jews in the past two thousand years. Suggesting equivalency between American Christians today and those of European history is to be offensive and ungrateful. Quite frankly, if it is appropriate to blame today's American Christians for the sins of past Europeans, why isn't it okay to blame today's Jews for things that our ancestors may have done? Clearly both are wrong and doing so harms our relationships with one of the few groups still friendly toward us today. Jewish groups that fracture friendship between Christians and Jews are performing no valuable service to American Jews.

In any event, Jewish organizations protesting Passion are remarkably selective in their ire. It is so bizarre that the new movie Luther, which champions someone who was surely one of history's most eloquent anti-Semites, gets a free pass from our self-appointed Jewish guardians. Only Gibson is evil, is that right?

Again, why would the soon to be released new movie, The Gospel of John, be utterly immune to the censoring tactics of certain Jewish organizations? After all, the soundtrack includes virtually every word of the Gospel including the most unflattering descriptions of Jewish priests and Pharisees of Jesus' time, along with implications of their complicity in the Crucifixion, yet not a peep of Jewish organizational protest. Could their conspicuous silence possibly have anything to do with the ethnicity of the producers of The Gospel of John? These include Garth Drabinsky, Sandy Pearl, Joel Michaels, Myron Gottleib, and Martin Katz. So if Jews quote the Gospel it is art but if Mel Gibson does the same, it is anti-Semitism? The Talmudic distinction eludes me. It probably eludes most Christians too.

These protests against Passion are not only morally indefensible, but they are also stupid, for three reasons. The first reason is that that they are unlikely to change the outcome of the film. Mr. Gibson is an artist and a Christian of deep faith of which this movie is an expression. By all accounts, his motive in making this movie was not commercial. In addition, anyone who saw his Braveheart would suspect that Mel Gibson profoundly identified with the hero of that epic, who allowed himself to be violently disemboweled rather than betray his principles. Does anyone really believe that Gibson is likely to yield to threats from Jewish organizations?

The second and more important reason I consider these protests to be ill-advised. While Jews are telling Gibson that his movie contradicts historical records about who really killed Jesus, Vatican Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos has this to say:

Mr. Gibson has had to make many artistic choices in the way he portrays the characters and the events involved in the Passion, and he has complemented the Gospel narrative with the insights and reflections made by saints and mystics through the centuries. Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those Biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels, as understood by the Church.

Do we really want to open up the Pandora's Box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive? Some of my Jewish readers may feel squeamish about my alluding to the existence of Talmudic passages uncomplimentary toward Jesus as well as descriptive of Jewish involvement in his crucifixion. However, the truth is that anyone with Internet access can easily locate those passages in about ten seconds. I think it far better that in the name of genuine Jewish-Christian friendship in America, we allow all faiths their own beliefs even if we find those beliefs troubling or at odds with our own beliefs. This way we can all prosper safely under the constitutional protection of the United States of America.

Finally, I believe the attacks on Mel Gibson are a mistake because while they may be in the interests of Jewish organizations who raise money with the specter of anti-Semitism, and while they may be in the interests of Jewish journalists at the New York Times and elsewhere who are trying to boost their careers, they are most decidedly not in the interests of most American Jews who go about their daily lives in comfortable harmony with their Christian fellow citizens. You see, many Christians see all this as attacks not just on Mel Gibson alone or as mere critiques of a movie, but with some justification in my view, they see them as attacks against all Christians. This is not so different from the way most people react to attack. We Jews usually feel that we have all been attacked even when only a few of us suffer assault on account of our faith.

Right now, the most serious peril threatening Jews, and indeed perhaps all of Western Civilization, is Islamic fundamentalism. In this titanic 21st-century struggle that links Washington, D.C. with Jerusalem, our only steadfast allies have been Christians. In particular, those Christians that most ardently defend Israel and most reliably denounce anti-Semitism, happen to be those Christians most fervently committed to their faith. Jewish interests are best served by fostering friendship with Christians rather than cynically eroding them. Rejecting flagrant anti-Christianism on the part of Jews claiming to be acting on our behalf would be our wisest course as a community. Doing so would have one other advantage: It would also be doing the right thing.

— Radio talk-show host, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, is president of Toward Tradition.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 26, 2004.

Hi MaryLu,

Thanks for posting that. I stayed up last night watching some comments by a Jew, a Methodist and a Baptist. Guess which one liked the movie and which ones didn't? You got it, the Baptist was the only fellow singing its praises. I was puzzled by the Methodist fellow's remarks. He was rather incensed about the whole thing, said he thought the movie would have been better if it focused on the love of Christ . . . SAY WHAT? Yep, the dude just didn't get it. The Jewish fellow was also appalled, indignant, and just downright angry. All the while, I'm remembering the Jews crying out at the crucifixion, "Let His blood be on our heads and on our children's heads." Makes me cringe everytime I read that in the gospels.

It was shocking to learn that Israel has BANNED the movie. The only country, so far, to go to such an extreme.

Anyway, MaryLu, it was refreshing to read something kind, thoughtful, and "reasonable" from our brother-friend, the Rabbi.

Good to hear from you MaryLu. You have been sorely missed here.

Gail

P.S. I'm going to go see the movie tomorrow with my two adult sons; one's a believer; one's an agnostic, but the agnostic cannot WAIT to see it!!! Glory be to God!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 26, 2004.

I would like to see a film like this, but the producer/director is not a Catholic, and I cannot in good conscience support him financially. My absence is my protest against his leaving the Church. He only pretends to be Catholic.

This man deserves a rebuke, not adulation. It is mind-boggling that no one, not here, not in the Vatican, not on Catholic TV, and not in Catholic publications, has expressed this truth. Catholics should not give this man their money, to be used for his mortally sinful non- Catholic way of life and projects. He is not in communion with the pope.

-- Hillaire (Mr@Belloc.com), February 26, 2004.

Listen, Hillaire: (HA!) We are not getting in bed with Mel Gibson; and we can see this movie without following his example. The film is a work of art. Catholics are not asked to denounce the work because of a Catholic artist's (he is another Catholic) error about Vatican II. Your simplistic attitude is bigotted, not Catholic. Our Holy Father viewed Gibson's film. If it needed denunciations, he would have said so. Get REAL.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2004.

Maybe it helps:

"Antonio Gaspari: I understand that you have already seen Mel Gibson’s new film, The Passion. What were your impressions? Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: As I watched this yet unfinished version of the film, I experienced moments of profound spiritual intimacy with Jesus Christ. It is a film that leads the viewer into prayer and reflection, into heartfelt contemplation. In fact, as I told Mr. Gibson after the screening, I would gladly trade some of the homilies that I have given about the passion of Christ for even a few of the scenes of his film. So many films have already been made about the life of Jesus Christ. What is the value of this one? With this film, Mr Gibson has achieved something truly extraordinary. He has used the marvelous technology available through our modern means of communication to make the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ come alive for the people of our times. What is more, the film as a work of art – the performances, the dazzling cinematography, the sounds, lighting, and pacing– is just as powerful as the message it contains. Even six months before the expected release date “The Passion” has stirred up a great deal of controversy. Do you have any reservations in recommending the film? I would like all our Catholic priests throughout the world to see this film. I hope all Christians will be able to see it, and all people everywhere. The film is reported to contain graphic violence. Won’t this provoke anger and hatred among viewers? In my opinion, one of the great achievements of this film is to have shown so effectively both the horror of sin and selfishness, and the redeeming power of love. Seeing this film provokes love and compassion. It makes the viewer want to love more, to forgive, to be good and strong no matter what, just as Christ did even in the face of such terrible suffering. The viewer is drawn into a powerful experience of God’s strong yet gentle love, of his overflowing mercy. It is my belief that if we could understand what Jesus Christ did for us and we could follow his example of love and forgiveness, there would not be hatred or violence in the world. This film will help to make that possible. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy your responsibilities include overseeing the catechesis of Catholics worldwide. Does this film contribute positively to your work? This film is a triumph of art and faith. It will be a tool for explaining the person and message of Christ. I am confident that it will change for the better everyone who sees it, both Christians and non-Christians alike. It will bring people closer to God, and closer to one another. Is Gibson’s version of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ faithful to the Gospel accounts? Mr. Gibson has had to make many artistic choices in the way he portrays the characters and the events involved in the Passion, and he has complemented the Gospel narrative with the insights and reflections made by saints and mystics through the centuries. Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those Biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels, as understood by the Church. Some have expressed fear that Gibson’s vivid depiction of the death of Christ could spark anti-semitism. Is there any truth to this? Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole race of people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort. It draws out from the historical objectivity of the Gospel narratives sentiments of forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. It captures the subtleties and the horror of sin, as well as the gentle power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations against one group. This film expressed the exact opposite, that learning from the example of Christ, there should never be any more violence against any other human being." *It can be reproduced fully or parcially Antonio Gaspari Gasparri is a free-lance Italian journalist, a frequent contributor to

Also, I have read several times (I think one from an american bishop) that Gibson is a catholic in communion with the Pope(I will try to fin the link again).

He loves latin Mass, but that is aprove by the church. The Pope and Ratzinger actually said traditionalisT have the "right" to use this rite.

The chapel of "Holy Family" of Malibu is in the list of catholic parish in internet, and I have a letter of truly sedevacantis (their problem is no latin Mass but doctrine) claiming against Gibson because he is with the Pope. I couls post I think but I think it´s already too long. Sorry my english +félix

-- Félix González (comopudiste@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

I posted this on another thread, but I thought I would post it here too.

I did see the movie last night. I will try to post more this weekend, as the kids have the day off of school today, so I'm quite busy here at home.

I still don't have the words yet for it really. It was wonderful, it was horrible, it was touching, it was heartwrenching. I definitely needed my kleenex, but yet I felt a little numb at times too.

Since you don't plan to see it until later on, I don't know how much you want to know about details or various scenes from the movie. There were some scenes that touched me extremely deeply...but I also don't want to spoil it for you.

It is an intensely personal experience to see this movie. I hope to see it with my husband, but I'm also very glad that I went by myself to see it first. As far as the kids, I would like to wait a couple of weeks to take them. I need time to let it sink in me first.

In Christ's love,

cksunshine

-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Everybody who's read my opinions of our Jewish brethren in past months has to know I love Jews. We all should; since Our Saviour Himself is a Jew. Our Blessed Mother is Jewish; not WAS-- IS.

When I say what follows here, it's with all due respect for any Jew who might come upon this thread. There's no animosity or intent to hurt Jews; I'm merely expressing a private opinion.

I believe the many objections voiced lately by some Jews in our country and in Israel (The Passion is banned), or anywhere this movie is screened; --Comes mainly from synagogues and rabbinical sources. Not so much from truly perceived ''fear'' of anti-Semitism or of real damage to Christian-Jewish relations; but a pretext at best. Their synagogues have a clear anticipation now that Christ will enter into many Jewish hearts and lives and families despite the great influence of their heritage. Many Jews will come to conversion, I sense for sure, after viewing this movie. They will have seen a vision of their Messiah at last; where they had never expected it. Jewish leaders in their synagogues sense somehow, they will lose their grip on millions of western Jews owing to this film's graphic illustrations of Christ's holiness and divine love. That's why they've protested to this landmark movie.

Film has enormous power to persuade graphically and dramatically. We see it year after year, viewed in classical movies never to be forgotten by awestruck movie audiences. Just to think of a few: The Grapes of Wrath, Gone With The Wind, Patton, and so many more. The potential of film to ATTRACT is unreal; it's bigger than life.

I had always dreamed of a day when our own Church, drawing from the immense wealth and love of all our faithful, would commit a definitive life of Jesus Christ to film with truth and grace.

It is one man by himself here, who because of his love of Jesus Christ, now realizes that possibility. Mel Gibson.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2004.

Hi Eugene,

I can't agree with you more. I had the very same feeling after seeing the movie. People who refuse to see it are afraid that they will be touched by it, are afraid that somehow their lives will be changed.

just came back from seeing The Passion and it was one of the most beautifully, moving, movie I have ever seen. The fact that it was done in Aramaic and Latin made it even more beautiful. The subtitles were easy to read.

Was there gore? Yes, of course, there was. After all Jesus was beaten, whipped, stepped on, spit upon...the gore tore my heart to pieces but did not scare me. It made me want to get on my knees and ask God for His forgiveness for every sin I ever committed - the little ones and the big ones.

Mafia movies (remember the horse's head in the Godfather?) The academy awards Mafia movies and shuns a movie about Jesus - should we throw away our Bibles or have the story rewritten to please Hollywood?

I did not leave the theatre hating anyone for killing Jesus because I would have to hate myself too. I left being humbled and wanting to become a better person than I am today.

Was it Anti-Semetic...I don't think so at all..'cause I know that we all put Jesus on the cross. I saw a little of myself in Pontious Pilate, the Roman soldiers, the High Priests, Judas, Peter....yes, I am guilty of killing Jesus too.

As for Mel Gibson, he already got His reward for having the courage to make a movie like this..He doesn't need an Oscar from Hollywood.

I saw Shindler's List, does that make me Anti-German? Am I anti- semetic if I like German people? I saw Roots, does it make me a racists for witnessing the truth about slavery?

I think I have read enough, said enough about The Passion. I've seen the movie and I want to see it again. I wanted to get on my hands and knees in the movie theater and ask God for His forgiveness..but, I was afraid they would escort me out!

May God bless Mel Gibson and each and every actor who played in this movie because they are being crucified too - but are also being blessed. May God protect Mel Gibson and bless him each and every day of his life.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 27, 2004.

Great post, MaryLu--
A believer is much more disposed to appreciation of the film, I guess. But we can also hope by God's grace somebody else will be drawn to Jesus every time this movie shows.

I watched an appearance by Jim Caviesel in Jay Leno's Tonight show last night. I never care to see them, but when I heard Caviesel would be a guest, I waited up late for it. I must say, he's an impressive young man. He has a fine sense of humor! He stated unequivocally, Gibson is a genius.

I loved the clip they showed of Christ being kissed by Judas in the garden, then arrested. I found it stupendous! Now I want to see the movie more than ever.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2004.

Yes, Eugene, Jim Caviesel is a fine young man. I was very impressed with him when I saw him being interviewed on one of the shows...don't remember which one as there have been so many interviews. He appears to be a humble person and a man of deep faith.

You will not be disappointed, Euegene, and I am curious about your 'review' of the movie.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 29, 2004.

I went to see The Passion of Christ this morning and I cannot describe in words what I felt because no words are adequate. I prayed before I went to see for courage because of what people who had seen experienced. All through the movie all I could do was pray the Rosary and the Divine mercy chapet continuously and cry. It was so awsome and I feel Mel Gibson has created a master piece. May God Bless him and all those who were connected in creating the film. Our beloved Saviour has certainly sent us in His Mercy a bombshell to shake us. I only pray that many souls will be saved at leset when they watch it. I simply do not understand why people are so critical about this. May be satan is trying his old tricks with the souls.

-- Ramanie Weerasinghe (lilanw@yahoo.com), March 05, 2004.

I have seem The Passion twice. The second viewing for two reasons: First because a friend didn't want to go alone and Second because we were late the first time and missed the first few minutes. This may sound funny, but missing those first few minutes made a difference! I'm so glad I went again.

I don't think this movie will do much for unbelievers. But for those who believe...it will set their hearts ablaze and rekindle a dwindling fire.

I was raised Catholic, but changed denominations due to theolical differences. I have heard some complaints about the Catholisim within the movie. I, too, notice that. But as particular as I am about remaining true to Scripture, I saw nothing that truly distorted the gospel accounts. Jn 21:25 says: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. My opinion is that we should not argue over every little detail. Instead, follow the example of Veggie Tails.

The Passion was GREAT! Hristro Shopov and Jim Caviezel deserve Oscars!

Ginger

-- Ginger Holm (gingerholm@earthlink.net), March 16, 2004.