felt like it was their duty to see the passion multiple times. My dad is a tightwad who gets on my back about going to the dollar show. Yet he went and saw the passion three times. Why did so many people feel that it was their duty to see the film? Did mel gibson give any money to the catholic church.
Attn: overly militant Catholics
I am not attacking the church. I am simply asking a question, a distinction similar to dan brown writing the Da Vinci code and then stating that it was a work of fiction!!! He did not say it was fact or an attempt to defame Catholocism; yet Catholics srill protested it. So do not pretend I am attacking Jesus or anything related to him. I am simply asking if Mel gave authorities money to influence clergy to see the film. I am not making a judgement about this even if he did. That being said, I am sure a few people will still attack me for no logical reason. Thank you.
2007-01-02 08:18:02 · 16 answers · asked by kmm4864990 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hey melvinben . . . :
Why would he? To get more revenue from increased ticket sales. That's why!!!! I also completely fail to see the parallels between what I am asking and your gift shop allusion. No offense dude, but I wanted a straight answer. If you have no clue, don't answer.
2007-01-02 08:29:25 · update #1
First of all, to the nameless answerer near the bottom that calls the notion "absurd", the homily (that's what catholics call "sermons") does concern scripture. However, how far may the priest stray from the weeks selected gospel reading? At the churches I have been to, priests frequently make real life comparisons and references. I guarantee they do at your church as well.
Secondly multiple priests mentioned it at my church.
Thirdly, Mel gibson wouldn't have to talk to "thousands of churches." He could simply talk to the world headquarters for the specific churches from which he would like verbal promotion (e.g. he wouldn't have to go to every Catholic Church. He could go to the vatican.)
Finally, I didn't make any judgement about the movie. I am commenting on the bizarre palpable phenomena of christians seeing it as their duty to see the movie. I have never seenthe movie, not because I have a problem with it.
Again don't let your biases cloud your logic.
2007-01-02 13:39:37 · update #2
No. There was enough publicity provided by JDL/ADL and other jewish organizations protesting against the movie that people wanted to see it for themselves.
2007-01-02 08:27:24 · answer #1 · answered by Ottawan-Canada 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay, it's a tough topic and you're looking for a fair answer. Cool.
I don't think Mel gave any money to the church - he may have given it to a related charity, but I wouldn't know without looking at his tax returns.
I take it you didn't like the movie. I enjoyed it and have seen it a couple of more times as a meditation, usually with Scripture open in front of me. That said, there's a few things not in Scripture (Veronica's wiping of Jesus' face and the Shroud of Turin), but that's allowed, this is a dramatization. Otherwise, he told the story well, kept it largely within context, and I'm quite impressed with the filming in two dead languages - Latin and Aramaic.
Also, I thought his portrayal of the devil as alternately androgenous and feminine was interesting.
Anyway, I think the clergy wanted to see it simply because it's the first movie about Christ that didn't try to raise major controversy about Jesus - such as "The Last Temptation". The controversy in this one was entirely due to the blood, which was profuse.
2007-01-02 17:24:29 · answer #2 · answered by Veritatum17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is absurd to think that Catholic clergy encouraged their parishoners to see the movie, so Mel would make more money so he would give more money to the Catholic Church in the form of charitable contributions.
First, the Catholic Church has no control over who mel gives money to.
Second, if there was some sort of agreement, Mel would have to make such an agreement with thousands of individual churches throughout the USA alone.
Third, messages given during the sermon are directly related to the Mass readings, not to movies.
Fourth, the movie was never mentioned in my parish and I go to church EVERY Sunday.
You are making assumptions and accusations.
2007-01-02 16:47:59 · answer #3 · answered by Sldgman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mel Gibson is a "Traditionalist" or "Traditional Catholic". I think it is inline with Rome, but sometimes I'm not so sure...
He has openly criticizes the Roman Catholic church.
I understand that he gives a great deal of money to charity...especially HIS OWN church.
Supporting Mel Gibson...or the Catholic Church has no part in my interest in "The Passion". I appreciate the Truth that the movie portrays of Jesus. It doesn't white-wash what He went through. It reminds me of His suffering and "puts me in my place".
2007-01-02 21:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by kathyh 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mel Gibson is an actor/director. Do you think he gives a crap about churches? Do you think any of the actors who worked in the film gave any of their paychecks to charities or churches? They grabbed the money and stuffed it in their pockets. I'm Catholic and I saw the movie becuase of all the hype but I never saw Gibson as a man of faith or a religious man. I saw him as I always did :an actor. Gibson profited a lot from the money of the people who went to see the movies and I bet he bought a real nice house in California.
2007-01-02 16:51:31 · answer #5 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea, but why would he? Do you have to pay a license fee to use Jesus? Has he been trademarked? WWJD? Is that trademarked? Why are there gift shops in churches?
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie The Passion of Christ. I am an atheist who was once catholic and even though it was fiction I felt as if I was watching the events really unfolding, as I would imagine this movie was not far fetched. (But why do they crucify thieves? Someone below me please answer this). The only drawback to the movie was my annoying girlfriend (ex now) digging her nails into my hands and crying the whole way through. Almost ruined an otherwise good night out.
2007-01-02 16:25:40 · answer #6 · answered by melvinbenjamin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mel Gibson is part of an old community that has put themselves outside of the church. He has his own church that he built and hired his own bishop. He is NOT Catholic. The group is called sedevacante (empty chair) because they do not accept any of the popes since Vatican II including John XXIII due to the change in the Liturgy that came about because of Vatican II. The last "valid" pope for them was Pius XII. See link.
2007-01-02 16:29:19 · answer #7 · answered by The Carmelite 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religion is really important to Mel Gibson. I would argue that it means more to him than to anyone else outside the clergy. That said, I'm sure that he gave a lot of money to the church.
2007-01-02 16:22:56 · answer #8 · answered by DA 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be cool if he did give some money to the church, but if he didn't it would be his perogative because he chose to make a movie and probably not the church. That being said, I myself am a Christian and for me, if I was Mel Gibson and I made a movie about jesus and it made millions of millions of dollars, then YES I would give 10% of the earnings to the church as the bible says to do when you tithe and outta appreciation to God for its success! :o)
2007-01-02 16:22:52 · answer #9 · answered by Light 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mel goes to a super orthodox church that has latin only and in CA and not the usual Catholic church... he probably gives a portion of his income to it
but in the end... isnt it the substance of the film that is the issue...
I am not Catholic and I liked it
2007-01-02 16:32:56 · answer #10 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know Mel Gibson has his own churches in California.
2007-01-02 16:21:33 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋