'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST'

February 2004
		Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," opened Ash Wednesday to mixed reviews. Two theology professors take your questions on the religious and philosophical questions surrounding the film.

Forum Introduction What viewpoint does the Vatican have on Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich? Why would her book on the Passion be or why should it not be a source for depicting the story on film? I am confused about the movie's depiction of the central idea of Christianity as the crucifixion of Jesus. Do you recognize modern-day movies as the new art form in the 21st century in communicating religious messages/themes and specifically the Christian message? If Mel Gibson is in a conservative movement within Catholism that rejects the reforms of Vatican II, wouldn't it follow that he would reject the declaration of that body that Jews were not responsible for Jesus' death? What evidence would you give that Protestant theology has minimized the crucifixion; and would it therefore follow that Catholic theology has minimized the resurrection? Mel Gibson claims the movie is historically accurate but in actuality, isn't the story of Jesus' crucifixion portrayed in the Gospels? So aren't there 6 or so different versions of the story? Where is he getting his historical evidence? Do you feel comfortable with the artistic license Mel Gibson exercised in the dialogue, and a number of events, not found in the Gospels, both personally and theologically?	Peter from Lake Charles, Louisiana asks: Do you feel comfortable with the artistic license Mel Gibson exercised in the dialogue, and a number of events, not found in the Gospels, both personally and theologically? Dr. Robert Johnston responds: Yes, that is what makes the film powerful. The other Jesus movie that came out this year is The Gospel according to St. John. It is visually stunning as well, and there were a team of scholars to help make the visualization accurate. But the text is simply the reading of John. It is interesting and worth seeing, but lacks all of the passion and involvement of The Passion. It is an illustrated reading, not an engaging movie. Moreover, even the Gospels themselves were interpretations of the Jesus event. For two thousand years Christians have interpreted the story, putting their emphasis on this feature or that and seeking to imagine what happened in the spaces where we do not know. Gibson is hardly unique in this regard. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is his faithfulness to the biblical core that has been pointed out by most commentators on the movie. Dr. Philip Cunningham responds: In principle there is nothing wrong for a passion script writer to augment the rather meager Gospel narratives. The question is whether this supplemental material is historically accurate (since the script is portraying a historical event) or whether it is purely fictitious. Therefore, I am very uncomfortable with Gibson's extra scenes of Jewish violence toward Jesus and his film's omission of undisputed historical facts, such as that Caiaphas retained the high priesthood only at Pilate's pleasure (contrary to the film's Pilate fearing a Caiaphas-led revolt!) or that riots against Roman rule were not unusual during the Passover festival.