On Mel Gibson’s DUI and anti-semitic comments
I’ve been thinking about what I wanted to say about this horrible event, but thankfully Mark Shea summed up my feelings precisely in these two posts. Here’s the money excerpt:
The big fart smell hanging in the air, of course, is the content of his tirade: all the swearing at Jews and the anti-semitic ugliness that came pouring out. As a good child of a post-Freudian culture, I was raised to believe that what people say when they are plastered, or insanely angry, or deeply afraid, or otherwise stripped of their normal rational faculties is Who They Really Are. We talk that way all the time. “I thought he was a good man until the mask came off and I saw the ugly Truth”. That sort of talk is natural as breathing for us.
That’s because, in America, everybody is a Calvinist, including the Catholics. We believe that the fall is identical with nature, and therefore believe that when you see a man in sin, you see him as he “really” is. Goodness is the mask, corruption is his nature.
I was corrected in this false and heretical belief years ago by my favorite priest in the world, Fr. Michael Sweeney, now president of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology. The reality is quite contrary. Sin is the mask. It is not what names us but what makes us anonymous. Sin, because of the fall, is normal. But sin is never “natural”. It does not constitute who we are, it *destroys* who we are. It is when the human person takes his place as the redeemed creature God made him that we begin to truly see his face and know his name.
And so, to Mel Gibson. Gibson tells us, “I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable.” It seems to me that we have a basic choice: to believe revelation or to believe Freud.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:13 pm
“It seems to me that we have a basic choice: to believe revelation or to believe Freud.”
One reason I became Orthodox is this very important and basic distinction. I know which I will be choosing…
July 31st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
That choice is too simple. We can look at all the evidence and see numerous actions and inactions pointing to Mel’s true beliefs, or we can convince ourselves that basic goodness and revelation somehow make bigotry impossible, and unlikely.
Choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence if you choose. There is nothing wrong with that. However, be aware that being overly appologetic towards public figures can lead to situation were we support Ralph Reed… (just tweeking you, but I think the instinct underlying this post and the Ralph support is the same and can lead to poor decisions)
July 31st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
What is the “overwhelming evidence” of which you speak, FunBoy? Is it that Jewish groups ridiculed Gibson for making “The Passion of the Christ” only for Gibson to repeatedly refute the movie’s alleged anti-Semitic theme and dialogue? Is it Gibson, leading up to the release of the movie, incessantly stating publicly that he had no intention of protraying Jews negatively in the movie? Is it Gibson’s putative track record of anti-Semitism in word and deed?
No, my suspicion is that the “overwhelming evidence” to which you allude involves Gibson’s (a) father and (b) recent drunken tirade. In vino, veritas? I hope nobody ever judges my entire life by what I said while in a foul mood one night. I suspect I’m not alone in such a sentiment.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:21 pm
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2431
Charles Krauthammer
Look, you can appologize for him - go ahead. But when:
Your father denies the Holocaust, and you refuse to say that it actually happened. You produce this outside the gospel anti-jew porn of a movie.
You reject the Vatican II reforms.
You just aren’t that drunk (.12 - yes alocholics are different, but let us be clear - this is about 3 beers)
I don’t care to go and document his comments and non comments through out the years.
So what if he said he had no intention of protraying jews negatively. He went outside the Gospel and DID portray them negatively. Further, he *said* he removed certain offensive scenes - he didn’t. He lied. He just took down the english sub-titles. http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/
So basically, you can choose to believe his “my career depends upon it apology” over his deeds, actions, statements, denials, and lies if you want. I won’t.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:41 pm
FunBoy,
You missed the point entirely. The question is not rather sin exists (obviously it does), but rather if it is essential to our nature in this fallen world.
By the way, the “Passion” a “porn movie”? How much of that stuff do you sniff before you post here??
July 31st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
FunBoy, I really wish you’d tell us what you really think…
Undoubtedly many people, like you apparently, had a real problem with the subject matter/content of Gibson’s Passion movie. However, I’m not sure why you think it’s “outside the gospel.” Sure, Gibson took some liberties, but both the substance and procedure were in accordance with the Gospel accounts as far as I can tell. It sounds like your problem is not with the Gibson’s Passion, but with the Gospels themselves. Yes, apparently those of who speak Aramaic can indeed pick up on that unredacted line to which you refer (also found in a Gospel account). I believe that the Gospels write about the Jews before Pilate shouting “crucify him!”
From your comments, you apparently think that (a) Gibson made this line up in an obvious attempt to communicate his anti-Semitism, and/or (b) the author of that Gospel was not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but was in fact under some demonic anti-Semitic specter when he wrote it. My hunch is no.
Please show me where Gibson portrayed some of the Jews negatively more so than some of them were portrayed in the Gospel accounts.
As an aside, I don’t like to get into a man’s motivations for why he does the things he does, especially if those things are bad. We are all fallen creatures, just as Feddie’s post relates, and all have fallen short of the glory of God. None more than others.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:58 pm
it does validate, i think, the concerns regarding aspects of the passion of the christ. not to mention that these passion plays have a very distinct and odious history in jewish history
July 31st, 2006 at 7:59 pm
on a lighter note, i think it also means the south park guys got gibson pretty much right
July 31st, 2006 at 8:16 pm
This is a false dichotomy. “Nature” can mean more than one thing. When Calvinists and other Protestants refer to human nature as sinful it is meant to be descriptive of man post-fall. Man’s tendency is to sin. It comes “naturally”, so to speak. Catholics, unless I’m mistaken, agree with this.
When Catholics refer to nature it is usually in a teleological sense, i.e. we understand the nature of man by what man is ultimately meant to become. Of course this concept isn’t lost on Calvinists either. The Westminster shorter catechism’s first question, “What is the chief end of man?” is answered with “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” This understanding is descriptive of man as he is to be.
So I think we’re actually talking about apples and apples here, no oranges involved. That said, I’m not sure why the “Catholic” position need hold that Mel’s tirade doesn’t reveal something true about him, even though it may not reveal his God-given nature. C.S. Lewis, about the furthest thing from a Calvinist, talks about turning on the lights in the basement by surprise and seeing the rats scurry out from the open into their hiding places.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I know from my own heart that there are bad things lurking in the dark there that can pop up when the light goes on (or when I’m caught in a bad moment, frustrated, had too much to drink, etc.). I’m grateful that God’s grace is sufficient, but I don’t have to be a Freudian to think that those things are still a part of “me”, at least this side of glory.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:30 pm
If you want to gloss over the liberties he took (almost every liberty resulted in casting the Jews in a worse light) fine. But remember this charity the next time someone on the “other team” says something stupid. Ralph Reed, Gibson, GWB all get forgiven… someone on Team Blue State says something unfortunate this cite links to it and paints all “liberals” with that remark. If a liberal says something, it not only reflects upon that speaker, it also reflects upon the democratic party. If a hardline conservative says something asinine it doesn’t reflect upon his actual character… is that about right?
No, I’m going to link to old SA posts to prove this point - I’m just asking for you to consider it next time you dogpile up on some idiot liberal.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I was ready to jump knee-deep into a defense of Calvinism and darn, if Defensor Pacis didn’t steal my thunder. Good job! (What does that name mean anyway?)
I don’t see how much Calvinism has to do with this sorry episode. Like DP says, both Protestants and Catholics agree that man is, post-fall, basically evil. That said, I don’t think Mel should be crucified–maybe a bad choice of words–for uttering a stupid epithet in a drunken rage. I don’t know that this experience reveals anything more than he got drunk, stupid, hopped in a car and got caught. If the officer had been black, latino or a member of any obvious minority, he might just as well have insulted another people group.
Does this justify his comments? Of course not. His words were despicable–but no more so than his deeds, i.e., driving while drunk.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Could anyone other than Mel Gibson have made a commercial success of what amounts to a snuff film?
July 31st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
And another thing. . .
I think the mistake Mark Shea makes is failing to make a distintion between pre-fall nature and the development of a corrupted nature occassioned by the fall.
I still think “goodness” is the mask we show to others–the winsome external appearance of Dorian Gray in contrast to the Portrait of Dorian Gray which showed his marred visage–the sorry state of desperately fallen soul. Was this Oscar Wilde’s confessional?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pm
O.k. John I have to respond. I thought Passion was a beautifully done film and not just because of his religious content.
I really liked the Aramic and Latin without subtitles. Man, when Pilate looks at Jesus and says to the crowd, “ecche homo!? Wow! It send chills down my spine.
And the Garden of Gethsemane scene. So powerful.
And, the androgynous Satanic figure.
Brilliant.
O.k. It was a little on the bloody side–but I have never heard anyone say that it was not accurate.
Saving Private Ryan was a little explicit too. Schindler’s List. Ditto. They were also favorites of mine. Maybe that says something about me.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
i never did really like the aussie ****. now i have a real reason to not give two flips about him or the rest of hollywood and their lives outside of the movies. i do not often back fun boy but it is strange that gibson did the passion (the story has caused much hate torwards the jews one way or another…history speaks for itself) and it is strange that this happens at a time when jews are all over the world stage. i am willing to say mel had jews on the brian and he was not thinking about how good their pickles and hot dogs are.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:37 am
This kind of drunk talk is repeated by late night patrons in watering holes across the country. I guess Mel doesn’t have the option of going to one of ‘em.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:41 am
I suppose as a lawyer who has represented his share of “fallen” human beings, I may provide a little different perspective to this conversation. First the givens, 1. drunk driving or driving under the influence is wrong, very dangerous to the driver and others and should be appropriately punished. 2. Regardless of whether one is or is not drunk, there is no excuse for Gibson’s behavior and his remarks.
Now given the fallen nature of man, that is, our propensity toward sin and toward “screwing up,” to coin the vernacular, Gibson’s anti-Jewish tirade is very consistent with someone who has some serious issues to address, both personal and communal. The intensity of his personality cannot be ignored. This lack of peace and uncontrollable drive to prove something, combined with his ongoing problem with alcohol, reveal a man in deep need of our prayers and serious spiritual counseling. There is no doubt that his father’s opinions have influenced his view of the world in one way or the other. But more than his father, the reaction of the secular Jewish community to the Passion probably did more to confirm whatever deep seated animosity he may have absorbed from his father toward Jews than anything else. After all he has worked in Hollywood for years and no doubt developed many relationships with those of a Jewish background or identity. From someone with Mel’s perosnality, if his critics are accusing him of something, he is more likely than not to tell them to go —- , rather than consider the merits of their concerns.
Having dealt with bigotry of all stripes, by Christians, Jews, Msolems, leftists, the rich, the poor, blacks, Mexicans, etc, I can tell you that sin is alive and well on this planet. I have seen people who were not prejudiced become so by the constant haranges of an opponent in s court case. I have seen lawyers jaded by the never ending flow of humanity being incarcerated develop very negative views of certain classes and races of people.
I also find it interesting how quickly the mob forms to throw the rocks at this flawed human being. Was the Hollywood community more sympathetic to the leader of the Crips, Stanley “Tookie” Williams, who not only was a racist but an organized crime leader prior to his arrest and conviction for murder?
What we need to remmember is that we all are broken and in need of God’s grace in our lives.
Mel’s episode call be very helpful in teaching others that it is not the money, the fame, or the power that brings us true and lasting peace, but a personal relationship with the Lord of all.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:12 am
Mel is an entertainer and I have to keep it at that. While he should receive kudos for making “The Passion,” which I believe for the most part is Biblically accurate, producing the movie doesn’t make Mel as saint, nor have I see any evidence wherein Mel has willingly undertook such a role. It is sad to see a gentlemen of his caliber arrested on these charges and having problems with alcohol - but he’s human. I don’t see any Freudian context to Mel’s conduct and arrest other than we all sinners continually seeking God’s grace. I wish Mel the best in whatever comes of this, but he doesn’t set my moral compass nor do his views shape the way in percieve the Jewish faith.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am
“That said, I’m not sure why the “Catholic” position need hold that Mel’s tirade doesn’t reveal something true about him, even though it may not reveal his God-given nature. C.S. Lewis, about the furthest thing from a Calvinist, talks about turning on the lights in the basement by surprise and seeing the rats scurry out from the open into their hiding places.”
I don’t think Shea is saying that his sin is not “true” - more subtly he is saying that sin is not the essential nature of Mel or anyone else. It is one thing to admit the reality of sin, and another thing to say said sin is “essential”. It is “Calvinistic” (and here we have to agree we are using a shorthand in that there is more than one “Calvinism”) to say that said sin is essential to man, even with the qualifier of “fallen”.
“both Protestants and Catholics agree that man is, post-fall, basically evil.”
Not at all. At least not most of the western Catholicism I am familiar with. Orthodoxy would disagree most profoundly with the idea that man “is, post-fall, basically evil”. That is exactly Shea’s point – that man is not “basically” evil, he is unnaturally evil, or more accurately sinful. Calvinism looses this basic distinction in that in conflates evil with nature…
August 1st, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Steve, want to weigh in on Christopher’s comments? (You’ve become my walking Catholic Encyclopedia.)
I’m late to the party but want to line up with what Defensor Pacis and Bart Harmon have said. The one further thought on nature: the redeemed human, being united with Christ in His death and resurrection, has a new identity. The imperative to the child of God is this: become who you really are. Brother Mel had a really bad night on that score. I’ve had nights at least that bad, but thanks to my obscurity and the grace of God, they are not widely known.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
And, I should add, never involved a police stop.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Christopher, not to get too Bible-thumpy (us Calvinists are bad that way), but if man is not basically evil, post-fall, how do you explain:
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
Ephesians 2:1 “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins . . .”
Ephesians 2:3 “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our SINFUL NATURE”
Romans 3: 10-12 “There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Romans 5:12 “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”
Romans 5:18 “as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men”
Romans 8:3 “weakened by the SINFUL NATURE”
Romans 8:8 “Those controlled by the SINFUL NATURE cannot please God.”
Romans 8:12 “we have an obligation—but it is not to the SINFUL NATURE, to live according to it”
Maybe we just disgree on semantics. Do Catholics not believe that Adams’ sin caused some fall, some incapacity, some inclination toward sin, some corruption of the soul that was that there before?
If not, if we are not basically evil, why did Christ have to die?
Did He really need to do that to rescue the not-so-bad, the not-bad-to-the-bone at least, the pretty darn good if you look at from a certain perspective (almost admirable compared to many).
That’s not what I read:
Romans 5:6 “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.”
So, yes Calvinism conflates evil with nature because, well, scripture conflates evil with nature (or a wicked heart or inclination toward sin and selfishness or whatever you want to call it)
I do agree that our ORIGINAL nature was not evil, our REDEEMED nature (the one those “in Christ” are credited with) is not evil and our RESTORED nature in heaven will not be evil.
Otherwise, we’re pretty rotten to the core.
Except to the extent that anyone who believes in total depravity can’t be all bad.
What?
August 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Christopher I think you’ve basically just repeated the argument that I responded to. I responded by saying there’s more than one way to understand “nature” (basically man-as-he-is and man-as-he-is-meant-to-be). You haven’t addressed that explanation but merely repeated the dichotomy I claimed was false in the first place. I may be wrong, but it would be helpful if you showed how and where.
And it would also be helpful if you would identify who you are quoting. I was responsible for the first quote, Bart for the second.
(btw Bart my name is Latin for “Defender of the Peace” which is probably a little grandiose but I still like it. Also the title of a book by Marsilius of Padua).
August 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm
SO-
I am getting ready to go into a meeting, but here are some of the relevant passages from the Catechism:
“The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”
. . .
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruits of men’s sins.
. . .
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20).
421 Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . .” (GS 2 § 2).
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm
August 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Sorry I do not have time for a full response (hopefully later), but to recognize our sinful “nature” is important, but it is more important to recognize the Image of God in each and every one of us. I don’t know the greek of the terms cited by Bart, but my guess is he is interpreting them in the philosophical sense where the Saints and the Fathers were using them more subtle sense. I will look it up when I get home. Again, I think Calvinists want to make the unnatural (and thus ultimately unreal) fact of evil to be an essential part of man. Thus, we are “rotten to the core”. Nope, we are at the core an Image of God. It is the consequences of Fall and the Evil One that we need redemption from, not our “core”…
August 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Christopher, I think the real question isn’t so much about “nature” or “core.” It’s what you consider to be the soteriological effect of the Fall. Swear you’re not a Pelagian, full or semi, and I for one would be happy to say we don’t have any fundamental disagreement.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Some quick notes:
1.) Mr. Gibson (how many of us know him well enough to use first names?) did make changes to the Passion that resulted in the removal of a key *Biblical* line. He did this in response to Jewish concerns. He did this despite his beliefs in the subject matter.
2.) No Jews were shot, hurt, or otherwise assaulted post-Passion. History does speak for itself and nothing happned. This was a big let down to many.
3.) Mr. Gibson is friends with one of the most prominent Jewish directors of all time.
4.) Mr. Gibson is highly emotional.
5.) Mr. Gibson is a an admitted alchoholic.
6.) Mr. Gibson has a father who he evidently loves dearly who *is* anti-semitic.
7.) Mr. Gibson is pro-patriarchy. He therefore will not speak directly against his father in public. Make of that what you will. I understand it.
Does he have hang-up’s? Whith his father being who he is I think it would be hard to say no. That does not mean he has a shrine to Hitler in his bedroom.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
ScurvyOaks,
lol! Well, I am Eastern Orthodox so that does make me a “semi-Pelagian” to many (most?) in Western Christendom. One of histories lessons on the ultimate failure of “compromise” when concerning ultimate things is the East’s attempt to appease the West when they gave St. John Cassian the feast day of February 29th. St. John corrected many of the dialectical excesses (not to mention his unexamined neo-Platonism) of the Blessed Augustine (who as Paul Tillich correctly said “is foundation of everything the West has to say”), and it is a tragedy that the West never internalized this. I make a special effort to observe St. John’s feast every fourth year in response to this small injustice. We are going over very old ground which was covered by men much wiser than ourselves. Ultimately, we probably disagree as to the place of philosophical dialectics when thinking about core terms like “nature”, “grace”, and the like.
So to answer your question, no I am not an Augustinian – which probably makes me a semi-Pelagain in your eyes…;)