Religious leaders debate the meaning of ‘Passion’

Rev. Bill Kenny

Monday, March 1, 2004 | 4:24 a.m.

Rabbi Felipe Goodman is the rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom in Las Vegas.

I have a confession to make: I am a real movie fan. I enjoy watching action movies, thrillers, comedies and an occasional drama. There is however one type of movie that I have never really liked -- religious movies.

Why? Well, for one I believe, as I am sure many other clergy people do, that sacred texts are the best source to connect with our heritage and to understand the sanctity of religious faith.

Trying to portray stories from the Torah, the Tanach, the Christian Bible or the Koran in a two- or three-hour movie, while framing the story in its correct political, social, historical and religious context, seems almost impossible even for the most capable of directors.

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" leaves much to be desired.

I was prepared for this movie to be many things. As were many other religious leaders for months before the movie opened, I had been bombarded with different messages by a plethora of organizations with different political and religious agendas.

Like many other people I found myself constantly wondering if this would turn out to be the most anti-Semitic film ever made or if perhaps, as Mel Gibson claimed, it would be an inspiring and emotional piece that illustrated one of Christianity's most important dogmas.

After I finally saw the movie I found it to be nothing more than an unilluminating procession of treachery, a succession of endless beatings, and an exercise in blood and agony.

It is a movie whose graphic violence makes other movies that I thought were extremely violent pale in comparison, a movie set in a vacuum that illustrates nothing more than the last hours of the life of Jesus, ignoring the historical and political context of the time in which he lived.

Consider if you will Gibson's Pontius Pilate, who is portrayed as everything but one of the bloodiest governors ever placed by the Romans in the Land of Israel. Gibson shows us a Pontius Pilate who is almost a humanitarian and not the true bloodthirsty governor who murdered thousands of Jews and, of course, one of them: Jesus.

Many in my congregation have asked me if I think this movie is anti-Semitic. After watching the movie I am now convinced that Gibson did not try to deliberately offend anyone. Rather, the horrendous way in which Jews are portrayed in the movie is a direct consequence of the way in which he translates the Gospels from their written form onto the movie screen.

In essence, as Jews we have struggled for over 2,000 years with the way in which the Gospels ultimately permeate to the reader. That is why it was necessary for many important Catholic Church figures to constantly speak out against a literal understanding of the written word, that is why documents were produced by the Second Vatican Council: to ensure the proper understanding in its context of the Passion of Jesus. That is why some kind of sub-text must always accompany a movie of this nature.

Except for a few extraneous elements, Gibson's rendition adheres to what we find in the words of the Gospels. Yet, in incorporating some of those extraneous elements that do not appear in The Gospels themselves, I feel that Gibson should have been more careful to consider the sensitivities of others. For example, his use of Satan, who throughout the movie seems to be alive and well "among the Jews," is a metaphor that is at best medieval in origin and that as a devout Catholic he should have been familiar with.

When he showed Satan reflected in the faces of Jewish children, the images of centuries of persecution, infamy and senseless death that we as Jews have suffered in the hands of fundamentalist Christianity certainly came to my mind.

The mere fact that he could let something like that pass unintentionally leads me to believe that he had little or no interest in historically researching the material he was using and its implications. He relied on the testimony of Jesus' disciples as eyewitnesses, completely ignoring any notion of Biblical, historical and religious scholarship.

The biggest fear that I and many other religious leaders have is not what an educated person will think about "The Passion of the Christ" but how a person who has never been exposed to the Gospels in this way will react?

As a Jew, I can't view this film in the same way as my Christian neighbors do. Why? Well, it goes beyond the obvious theological differences. It felt as if I was watching a completely different movie than the person sitting next to me, who brought with him a box of tissues because he was sure that what he would see on the screen would definitely move him to tears.

Not only was I not moved to tears but I also found myself questioning what was I doing inside the movie theater watching such a horribly violent movie.

So why don't I experience the movie in the same way as my Christian neighbors? Think for a minute. Why has there never been a movie made depicting the lengthy and excruciating torture of Rabbi Akiva -- an extremely important figure in Judaism? We would never depict the Roman savagery that inflicted agony on Rabbi Ishmael, or any of our sainted leaders who were tortured to death by the same Roman authority who had murdered Jesus of Nazareth a hundred or so years earlier.

Why will that film never be made, at least not by a Jew sensitive to his/her tradition? Because we don't idealize suffering, we abhor it. We idealize learning, we idealize values, and we idealize spiritual audacity.

Yes, we recognize the courage of those who accepted death, rather than violate fundamentals of their faith. But it is not accidental that the Martyrology, which is recited during Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), is recited late enough in the afternoon to assure a rather small audience.

Our sages discouraged martyrdom, except under certain very limited and very extenuating circumstances. For it is life and not death, joy and not sorrow, that our tradition idealizes.

It is my prayer that this new century will bring with it much less bloodshed and suffering in the name of God and much more understanding, tenderness and compassion in the name of God.

If a movie such as "The Passion of the Christ" is to serve any ultimate purpose, let it be to open up the dialogue between people of different faiths so that we can further understand each other, prevent the further use of calumnies, lies and hate and serve God with an open heart.

The Rev. Bill Kenny is pastor of Christ the King Catholic Community Church in Las Vegas.

Like so many, I was anxious to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" because of the hype that preceded its opening on Wednesday.

Several things were on my mind before I went to the theater. First, and potentially most serious, were the charges of anti-Semitism that had been leveled at "The Passion of the Christ," often by those who had not actually seen the film or even read the script.

However, such concerns are certainly legitimate; in the past, many of the Passion Plays of Europe, including the most famous at Oberammergau in Bavaria, had been intentionally anti-Semitic, until modern sensitivities and the intervention of the Vatican demanded a rewriting of the script.

Much has also been made of some of the views of Mr. Gibson's father, who apparently has questions concerning the Holocaust.

The second concern of many was the extensive violence that is depicted -- concerns that questioned its necessity, authenticity and the amount of time given to it in the movie. Finally, Mr. Gibson's personal life was brought into the pre-release discussions: his traditional Catholicism, his previous movies and lifestyle and his father's views on religion, the papacy and the Holocaust.

I tried to put aside my concerns when I attended the film on Ash Wednesday morning. It didn't take long, for as soon as the movie opened with the scene of Jesus' agony in the garden, I was drawn into the powerful drama of the passion of Jesus. When the film was over, nearly two hours later, I knew that my previous understanding of the how much Jesus suffered was broadened. These are a few initial reactions:

1) I did not see any anti-Semitism in the film. It is an historical film, based on the events, as told in the New Testament Gospels, of 2000 years ago. Some Jews who lived in Jerusalem at that time participated in the arrest, conviction and execution of Jesus of Nazareth; and some Jews were, of course, on Jesus' side, including all his relatives, most especially his mother, Mary, and all his apostles and disciples.

It was not even all the leadership of the Temple who were actively against Jesus: there was Joseph of Arimathea, who gave the tomb for Jesus' burial; he was a member of the Sanhedrin (the Temple council); and there was Nicodemus, a Pharisee, who brought spices for Jesus' burial preparation. At least one of these Jewish leaders is depicted at the foot of the cross in "The Passion of the Christ."

True to the Gospel accounts, there are few heroic individuals shown in this movie. The exceptions are Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is with her son to the very end; the other women who follow Jesus to Calvary, most famous of all being Mary Magdalene; there is the "beloved disciple" (usually identified as John), who is at the foot of the cross.

Using artistic liberty, Mr. Gibson adds a few more heroic characters: one a Jewish male -- Simon of Cyrene, who goes through a conversion process, from forced and reluctant helper to a believer and defender of Jesus; the other, a Gentile woman -- the wife of Pilate, who is sympathetic to Jesus and even offers Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, consolation with cloths for their tears.

Most everyone else in the Gospels and in the movie participated in some fashion in the cruelty against Christ: the Jewish leadership and crowds, the Gentile Roman leadership and soldiers. Except for John, even the apostles deserted Jesus, including Simon Peter, who had denied ever knowing him, and Judas, who betrayed him and in despair committed suicide.

2) It is a violent movie -- not suitable for the weak of heart or for children. But crucifixion is violent. War is violent. (Remember "Saving Private Ryan.") Murder is violent. Yet, we sometimes need to see the extent and reality of violence in order to stop it. Mr. Gibson's intent was to shock his audience -- not, I believe, for shock's sake alone, but perhaps to energize and mobilize those who see the film to work against all violence in our society, especially that which is a result of any kind of prejudice, bigotry or bias.

3) Finally, Mr. Gibson's personal life and that of his father have nothing to do with the merits of the film. As so often, even if the messenger is flawed (as all of us are), the message can still be quite effective. Thus, I see his movie as a great opportunity for dialogue.

Witness all the conversations, TV segments, cable and network spin-offs on the life, the death and the mystery of Jesus. People are talking everywhere about this movie -- and about faith and God and religious bigotry and tolerance.

I would recommend it to all who have an open mind. For Christians, it will clarify what happened in those last 12 hours of Jesus' life -- and hopefully strengthen their understanding of the theology of the redemption of Jesus Christ; that is, that Jesus loved us so much that he suffered and died for our sins.

For non-Christians, it should be educational and inspirational, as were "Ghandi" and "Schindler's List." A few might use this film as an opportunity to fuel their already-existing anti-Semitic views, but for those open to dialogue and discussion, "The Passion of the Christ" may very well be an instrument for stronger faith and religious harmony.

archive