*The Passion* in the context of Catholic tradition

[Plaid Adder]

I am extremely lapsed, so I hope other people who have kept their membership current will pitch in and correct me where I am wrong, but I was thinking about how Gibson's *The Passion* is, from what I can tell, a real departure from the way the passion play has traditionally been used in Catholic ritual, and here's what I came up with...

First of all, I haven't seen Mel Gibson's The Passion and I'm not going to, for 2 reasons: 1) I don't want to give him money and 2) from the descriptions it sounds as if there's a 90% chance I'd have to walk out after the first 20 minutes. I have a low tolerance for graphic violence. But it had occurred to me that it might help those of you who did not suffer through a Catholic upbringing to have some sense of the tradition The Passion comes out of.

The 'passion play' is something that has been part of Christian ritual tradition since the beginning, really. Catholic mass is always organized around a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice through the Eucharist. But during Easter week, there are two masses during which involve the celebrants and the congregation in what is essentially a dramatic reading of part of one of the Gospel narratives. Holy Thursday re-enacts the Last Supper, which became the model for the Eucharist. On Good Friday you get the passion, which is the arrest, the 'trial,' and the crucifixion. The term "passion," incidentally, is used here in its more Latin-root sense of "suffering," as opposed to, you know, mad passionate romance, but the overtones are rich and I'm sure Mel is playing on all of them.

Anyway, I've been lapsed for a long time and the details are sketchy, but one thing I do remember very clearly is that the celebrants 'play' the individual roles (you always have a priest as Jesus, and someone as the narrator, and someone else does all the other speaking parts such as Peter, Judas, etc.) but the congregation plays the crowd. Which means that at some point, you all have to respond to the question, "Should we release this Jesus to you or crucify him?" by yelling, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" In one version, and it's embarrassing that I can't remember which Gospel this is, Pilate says, "Well, you know, his blood will be on your hands," and the congregation has to reply, "On us and our children!"

That always bothered me. I remember explaining to my grandmother, who was an Episcopalian, that I really didn't like having to say "crucify him," and she said, "Oh, it doesn't really make sense to get upset over something that happened that long ago." When you think about it, that answer makes absolutely no sense--isn't the whole point that even though this was all going on practically 2000 years ago it's still fresh as if it was yesterday?--but I suppose that being older she was just less impressionable.

Looking back on it, it seems to me that this represents a crucial difference between the way the Catholic Church uses the passion story in its own rituals and the way Mel is trying to use it in this movie. For better or worse, what the Good Friday passion play does is make the 'audience' complicit in Jesus's death. The congregation has to take some of the responsibility and share the guilt for the sacrifice taking place. Now on the one hand this is part of that whole celebrated Catholic-guilt thing, which has caused the world an awful lot of sorrow and grief. On the other hand, it does make a certain amount of sense: after all, the Catholic take on this is that Jesus is sacrificing himself for all the people in that church, and so in that sense, they are responsible for what's happening to him.

Gibson's movie, from all I hear, forces the audience to share the suffering--in that way it's more like doing the stations of the cross than going to mass--by drawing it out in all its gruesome technicolor glory, but then transfers the guilt to someone else. Even though opinion is still split over whether the film is deliberately and maliciously anti-Semitic, all the reviews seem to agree that Gibson has rehabilitated Pilate by making the Pharisees, as one reviewer put it, "the black hats." And of course because it's a film and not theater, the audience cannot be incorporated into the crowd scenes in the same way, and therefore do not have the same kind of complicity. They are in the position that all film viewers occupy: that of the helpless voyeur. While the act of watching something like this does confer a certain kind of responsibility on the viewer, it can never involve him or her as directly as a live production would. So the responsibility for the sacrifice is safely shifted onto the shoulders of the on-screen crowd, who conveniently belong to an ethnic and religious group that is clearly not part of the film's intended audience, and therefore easy for those so inclined to Other and demonize.

As scripted as that Good Friday mass is, you as the congregant do have to make the decision to participate in it, and to take on your small part of the responsibility for the suffering about to be enacted. It seems to me that Gibson's film is not going to force, or even ask, anyone watching it to do that. Which is just another reason why the whole thing is pretty scary. Because if it allows the audiences to put all the blame for this horrifying torture on somebody else, then basically all it becomes is an extended-play version of the Two Minute Hate.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[H2O Man]

1. I won't be going to it, either.

I enjoyed your thoughtful post. One thing I'd like to address is the "controversy" over Did The Jews Kill Jesus? Well, let's think...the Chinese weren't there. The Islamic fanatics weren't created yet. The Aztecs inhabited a different hood. Being Irish, I'd love to blame the English, and if we were all drinking enough, I could make a passionate case. But they didn't. There were, in fact, only two "groups" of people there: Romans and Jews. Pretty simple, really.

[Mari333]

2. About 13 years ago, I had my kids in Catholic school here in town

I had been out of the Catholic church for quite a while, but I was approached by the people at the church to write a passion play for the students, and have them represent it (the teenage students)
I said okay, and proceeded to write the play, but I wrote the play as a metaphor..not as literal fact..
As the students enacted the play, I spoke on the microphone, and laid out the concept of the metaphor as the passion of jesus being an INNER JOURNEY that each person must travail to come to some inner peace within themselves..
That the dying on the cross that Jesus did was representative of the dying of our own egos, and the submission of ourselves to a greater Good within ourselves..and how this passion play represented that..
I.E., I was merely attempting to offer to the audience that they too were Christ, and could embrace that story in their own lives as they allowed themselves to tear away the lies and deceit they are taught, the control issues and fears they deal with daily, and submit themselves to an inner beauty within thats divine and lovely and in them all.. (ancient idea anyway...see: Erishkigal and the Descent of Innana in the Sumerian texts)
WELL! I was absolutely lambasted by the evangelical catholics at the church ! How dare I suggest we could all take that journey!
hah...a lot of people came up to me later and told me they loved it tho..
BTW I dont go there anymore, I prefer the woods now to sit in and meditate with my doggie. He makes more sense then most people I know when it comes to divinity.

[lapislzi]

9. I like your take on this.

I always thought it was a metaphor anyhow.

[Mari333]

10. Joseph Campbell, scholar and teacher once said

"The problem is, people take the mythology and they concretize the stories rather then view them as a metaphor they can use in their own lives"
seems to happen all the time in every religion.

[H2O Man]

14. in Primitive Mythology, by J. Cambell

the 2nd chapter (Imprints of Experience) deals with the idea that all mythology starts with human suffering. The process opens the mind to truths that are "hidden" from the masses. To convey these truths, for which there are no words, the person who suffers must rely upon symbols. A problem occures when the unenlightened believe in a symbol. Even the most sincere believer often confuses the symbol with the truth.

[Mari333]

15. When my husband was killed, I was 35

and it was a wake up call for me, the first experience I had ever had with death, the first experience I had ever had with recognizing I was not in control of everything in my life..it is like having the veritable carpet of comfortable delusion literally ripped out from under me...I was desperate to tear away the veil between life and death, in a hope to understand the mystery of it all in some way..
Campbell was someone who helped me immensely to recognize that the journey I was on had been taken before by many people, and I was not alone in the metaphor and symbol of that journey. I appreciate him so much for that.

[H2O Man]

16. That's interesting.

I was in a serious car accident a few years ago. I lost far more than physical attributes and abilities. But when you cannot go out, you go in. I had also been one of the two kids made into a composite in the movie "the Hurricane" and have beautiful letters from Brother Rubin when he was underground in a 6'-8' dungeon in the darkness. There are things that we can learn only through great suffering. I note that at a recent funeral for a friend, his family members tended to rise above the normal petty family disfunction that had cost them a close relationship with their brother. They only learned to appreciate him in death. But it happened. (And yes, many families have members who reach their prime of pettiness at funeral/will time.) I've said that to say this: the people who say there was no Jesus, or that he isn't important, do not understand the symbolism any more than our confused friends who think he is "GOD" separate from humanity. His life and death were real. Some people only can appreciate him in death. It happens. But love life. Life is a miracle.

[Mari333]

19. So you went inward and faced mortality

and so did I..face the truth, mortality, and my own mortality in that process..when I faced my husbands death, I also had to face my own, which I had never seen as a reality before .
In retrospect, yes, it has made me embrace life , and as I age, and my husbands picture gets younger and younger , if a fear washes over me about death, I just remember "well, he did it, so can I".
then I pet my dog, who makes more sense to me then any human I ever met. =))

[icymist]

22. Good for you Mari!

I also find doggies to be superior meditation partners than most people! The 'Inner Journey' you describe reminds me of a phrase that, as I recall, was popular in the late '80's: "Be your own Jesus". :)

[papau]

3. The Word made flesh is usually said to balance the interpretation

of why Jesus was here.

Indeed as I recall it was 500 years after that the death became more central than the coming and the Word.

But I also recall the congregation Acting as part of the reinactment so as show some of the responsibility and share the guilt for the sacrifice taking place.

It seemed optional - not a required method for the service - but many Priests chose it.

It is certainly not in the Book of Common prayer.

[emad]

4. It's a subject that has been over cooked by generations of movie

makers. The whole subject is inflammatory regardless of one's personal spiritual/religious inclination.

Personally I don't like Mel Gibson. "What Women Want" is the only recent film of his I bothered to watch. And that was crap too I thought.

The current flamewars that his latest film has generated are as daft as those hysterical waves of bigotry that swept the world when Monty Python's Life of Brian was released.

[lapislzi]

5. Comments from another lapsed observer

(Catholicism never dies, my friend; it merely goes underground, and it's even more dangerous then)

The outcome of the passion is pre-ordained--by the Big Man himself. The participants could not change the outcome, although presumably Jesus himself could, as he nearly did when he asked God to take the cup from him. Jesus chooses his own fate. The congregation has the illusion of complicity, but they truly have no effect on the outcome.

The complicity of the congregation is also the fact that Jesus is presumably being crucified for the sins of the world. That is our responsibility--to honor the sacrifice. The blood of the Christ both marks and redeems us.

At least that is my reading of it. I was devout until about my 16th year. Now I am an atheist, but I retain a peculiar fascination with matters Catholic.

[Nashvilliberal]

13. Anti-Catholic Post?

"(Catholicism never dies, my friend; it merely goes underground, and it's even more dangerous then)"

As a Catholic, I am offended by your statement. Reading it as objectively as possible, I find nothing in it that could be construed as constructive criticism; it is simply and plainly an insult to the Catholic Church.

The rules state that we: "Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry." You certainly would be chastised for posting the same statement regarding the Jewish or Muslim religions, and I will not sit quietly while my faith receives the lesser of a double standard.

[lapislzi]

21. My opinion: all religions can be dangerous

when abused, sublimated, or used to foster human misery. I feel especially damaged by the Catholic church (for reasons that are none of your business).

I did NOT say that Catholics are dangerous, stupid, hypocritical, or abusive, although doubtless some are. My problem is with the institution, the individuals who have perverted it, and the individuals who stand idly by and do nothing about it. If you take that personally, it is really your problem.

Please, defend your faith by all means, if you feel the need. I will listen. I may disagree with you, but please feel free to present a reasoned argument.

PS You joined up TODAY and you're tellin' me what the rules are?

Welcome to DU!
:toast:

[Leilla]

6. Dances with Crucifixes

The carefully crafted controversy surrounding actor Mel Gibson's much hyped directorial debut "The Passion of the Christ" over its alleged anti-Semitic message (Jews killed Christ, now they want to kill my movie) will likely succeed in tempting millions of Americans to sit through a film with subtitles for the first time in their lives.  How they'll manage to move their lips in the dark with Mars Bars and corn dogs stuffed in their mouths is anyone's guess, which is probably why it's never been tried before.

America's Christian majority have cause to rejoice over Hollywood's temporary transformation into "Holywood". Families can now safely venture into cineplexes without worrying about what Pee-Wee Herman may have left on the seat. So much for "secular excitement." Some might argue that a man being impaled, flayed alive and left to bake in the desert could hardly be categorized as wholesomely edifying entertainment, unless of course you're Mel Gibson's dominatrix..........
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/Matsui0227.htm

[Festivito]

7. I gather Mel's movie skips the man-on-man action.

Judas giving Jesus a kiss to distinguish Jesus to the guards would be excellent footage for slow motion, but, in light of all this gay marriage talk it just wouldn't be seemly, would it.

[Gman]

8. Thanks for your thoughts

As a product of Catholic shool education, I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on what it is I felt about this movie although I hadn't really taken the time to think it all the way through. You've summed the Catholic experience up well as it relates to this movie.

Personally I've decided to not see the movie. I know the story.

[enough]

11. Two passion plays

Very interesting as always, Ms. Adder.

Your point about the difference between participation and watching/blaming reminds me of the novel -- The Greek Passion -- by Nikos Kazantzakis. It takes place during the rehearsal and performance of the Passion Play by the inhabitants of a rural Greek village and follows the effects of this deep participation on the people involved.

I'm also reminded of a performance I attended twenty years ago. A local Presbyterian Church here puts on a very famous Passion Play every other year. The sort of thing that attracts bus-loads of tourists from all over the eastern seaboard.

The play is put on by amateurs from the church in a big outdoor amphitheater with lots of garish lighting. It was very violent and bloody. So much so that we almost left with our children, except that we were far enough away that they couldn't really see much. I came away wondering about the sadistic underpinnings of the whole thing.

There was one unforgettable moment in this drama, though. Lazarus was laid out dead under a sheet and his beautiful daughters were keening and weeping over him and begging Jesus to miraculously bring him back to life. Just at the crucial moment, Lazarus was apparently inspired by the beauty of those girls in their off-the-shoulder togas. The sheet covering his crotch began to rise up as if on a pole, giving very dramatic meaning to the phrase "he is risen!"

[many a good man]

12. We are ALL Jews

IMHO the Bible story is an allegory of man's relationship with God -- all men, not just Jews. I've heard the word "Israel" means "struggle with God." We all struggle with questions of ethics and morality and choose sides with or against the status quo.

Jesus led an uprising against the corrupt power elite (Pharisees) who upheld the status quo and kept the populace in a state of submission. When confronted with the possibility for change most people buckled and got behind the status quo. Therefore the Jews who called for Jesus' execution reminds us of the weakness in ourselves which is afraid to stand up to power for what is right. Deep down we hate this in ourselves and project it onto the ethnic group of the people used in the story.

Maybe a better story would have been shot from the perspective of a Jew who became a follower and later went along with the crowd calling for his death.

[ArkDem]

17. That's a lot of opinion for something

you haven't even seen.

[Progress]

27. Read it again.

Plaid Adder's post talks about a lot of things other than the film, and the part that is about the film relies on only the most basic knowledge of the film that pretty much everyone already has.

[Iris]

18. I grew up Catholic, too

and always found the reading of The Passion to be quite profound. I don't need to see it portrayed any more realistically than that public reading.

[OneBlueSky]

20. real Christians (and others who hear Jesus' message) understand . . .

that the meaning of Christ's passion is in the resurrection, not the crucifixion . . . Gibson got it backwards . . .

[DrBB]

23. Have you read Orcinus's take? Similar to yours

I take your point--lapsed RC here, too--that the point of that Palm Sunday pageant service is to reenact the complicity of ALL, which is I think actually one of its positive aspects.

But I think what's peculiar about Mel's take is that it is precisely the OPPOSITE of that ritual enactment.

Dave Neiwirt points out that Mel has essentially created yet another action-movie based on the arc of the vengeance plot--same thing all his movies seem to do. With the exception: here that the Bad Guys don't get creamed in the end. Why? Because that's OUR job.

And Mel has marketed the thing as a major salvo in the Kultur Kampf from the beginning, in the most cynial way.

As Frank Rich put it, back a year and more ago,

His game from the start has been to foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the "entertainment elite" (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie. But based on what? According to databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized "The Passion" when Mr. Gibson went on Bill O'Reilly's show on Jan. 14 to defend himself against "any Jewish people" who might attack the film. Nor had anyone yet publicly criticized "The Passion" or Mr. Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish critics who didn't yet exist. (Even now, no one has called for censorship of the film — only for the right to see it and, if necessary, debate its content.)

Whether the movie holds Jews of two millenniums ago accountable for killing Christ or not, the star's pre-emptive strategy is to portray contemporary Jews as crucifying Mel Gibson.

[Plaid Adder]

24. So it is Palm Sunday and not Good Friday then.

Man, I'm more lapsed than I thought.

I think the idea of seeing the film as part of a revenge arc actually makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought about it that way, but Rich is right about Gibson manufacturing the flap in order to sell himself as the artist taking on censorship, among other things.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Maeve]

25. Not either, both

Palm Sunday used to concentrate more on the entrance into Jerusalem, now it's even called "Passion Sunday" and has a passion story as the gospel. But the Good Friday readings are still a version of the trial and death as well.

I think they wanted to make sure and get those of us who don't always make time to go to church on Friday...<whistling and looking innocent>

[MidwestMomma]

26. Your words made me go look up the Stations of the Cross liturgy

I had to look it up, because I was raised Catholic but I'm mostly a C&E Catholic now.

You are so right about Catholics and how we were taught to hold ourselves responsible for Christ's death. Almost every 1st Station liturgy (Jesus is condemned to death)I found stated something similar to:

"My adorable Jesus, it was not Pilate, no, it was my sins that condemned You to die."

Even though I don't go to Church all the time, our church has the one of the most powerful Stations of the Cross on Good Friday. As we progress through the Stations, people from the parish share something that relates to Christ's suffering/journey at each Station. For example, the Station when Jesus falls, one year we had someone who was recovering from a bout of cancer. It's hard to explain but it fits it with your post and others on this thread of how Catholics internalize Jesus' suffering.

As far as the movie the Passion, no thanks. Can't handle gore and I don't think Jesus would want me to suffer for his death. I always thought Jesus died to save us from suffering....Peace.