Perhaps there has already been more than sufficient commentary on “The Passion of the Christ.” Nevertheless, I was invited by the Catholic Herald’s editorial staff to offer my own personal reactions to the Mel Gibson film. I do so as we move into this most sacred time of Holy Week when we celebrate the Lord’s victory over the world’s sin and death. Thus the film itself as well as our further reflections might deepen the spiritual power of this solemn season.

When I went to see the film, I confess that I did so more out of a sense of duty than desire, primarily because most biblical films seem so poorly crafted, at least in my judgment. There were only three other persons in the theater for the matinee showing which I attended, thus allowing me to focus on the film without distraction. There is no doubt that it was a brutally violent rendition of the Lord’s Passion.

As I thought about the experience, religiously powerful as it was, I realized that any effort to review the film for others probably requires three different and distinct categories of judgment: artistic merit, fidelity to the Gospels and conformity with the church’s guidelines for dramatic representations of the Passion.

In terms of the film’s basic artistry, I acknowledge my own inability to offer a fully professional judgment of the work as art. Conversation with those who are so qualified, however, raised two concerns. First, although the film may not be as violent as many others currently on our screens, its violence is intensified by the fact that it portrays so much vicious brutality directed at a figure with whom so many of (us) viewers identify so personally. Moreover the people who would be attracted to “The Passion of the Christ” would not normally venture out to see such violent films and would therefore themselves fall into the category of those most deeply affected. Thus the film is horrendously violent. Secondly, I’m told that the best art conveys meaning more by suggestion than direct depiction. In my judgment on the level of artistry, the picture was traumatic and needlessly violent.

At the second level of judgment, every artistic rendition of the Gospel, especially the Passion, should be judged according to its fidelity to the Scriptures and their message of salvation.

In that regard I found this film seriously wanting in many aspects. The cinematic account intermingles scenes from each of the four canonical Gospels without respect for the distinctive theological portrait of Christ proposed by each. Such a rendition obscures the intent of the Passion narratives and certainly does not reflect the best of Catholic scholarship.

More specifically, in the Gospels themselves there is no hint of brutality by temple guards in the garden at the time of the arrest. The throwing of the chained Jesus off the bridge by the temple guards is gratuitous at best, and ultimately contemptuous of the true nature of Jewish temple authorities. The two quick scenes depicting someone in clothing reminiscent of Jewish authorities, knocking on doors and slipping money in exchange for attendance in the High Priest’s court are clearly contrary to the Gospels and subtly suggest the utter venality of the Jewish leadership.

I saw too many figures among the crowds caricatured by traditionally stereotypic Semitic features. The fact that Satan was depicted in the film as moving among the Jewish children who brutally tormented Judas is without foundation in any Gospel, and heightens the suggestion that the entire population was indeed inflamed with brutality.

In my judgment that level of brutality was even erroneously imposed by the film on the biblical text at times, as for example the film’s portrayal of the crown of thorns. In fact the imposition of the crown was intended to mock, not cause pain. To prove the point, I would note that the Greek word was acanthus, a thistle, the very leafy plant which decorates the top of Corinthian columns. Our traditional Catholic piety, however, would never have noticed that reality.

The title of the cross included only Latin and Hebrew, not the Greek also indicated by John’s Gospel (19:20). The ripping of the garment contradicted John’s report of Christ’s seamless garment (19:23). The total destruction of the Temple is not in the Gospels in any way and suggests the annihilation of Judaism itself, contrary to Paul’s insistence on the irrevocability of the Lord’s covenant with Israel (Rom 11:29). Quotations were inserted into the film’s Passion narrative from an entirely different biblical source, including, for example, the comment, “See Mother, I make all things new” which comes from a very different context in the Book of Revelation (21:5). This also is contrary to the best of Catholic scholarship, certainly since the encyclical teachings of Pope Pius XII.

In the last analysis, contrary to the film, the Gospels present a Christ who redeems by loving obedience, not by his extreme physical suffering alone. Moreover, all the Gospels provide a sharp focus on the meaning of his death, not the graphic historical details themselves, painful as they may have been. Thus, unfortunately, this viewer found the film deficient in reference to the biblical text and the deepest meaning of the Gospel narratives, powerful and beautiful as some scenes may have been. The resurrection was only a hint at the end, minimizing the hope which any true representation of the Passion should offer us sinners of all generations.

Finally, any judgment of this film must include an assessment of its conformity with the church’s 1988 guidelines for dramatic representations of the Passion. Given the legitimate freedom of artistry, this is not an easy task. The criteria include presenting the Lord’s death as the mystery of salvation for all rather than shifting the blame on any historical group, the recognition of Pilate as the sole person legally responsible for Christ’s death, the obligation to avoid any caricatures of Judaism (e.g., avaricious or bloodthirsty), false opposition between the disciples and the rest of the Jewish population, collective Jewish guilt, the need to acknowledge the rich theological diversity of first century Judaism (many of whom welcomed the teachings of Jesus regarding the Kingdom of God), and care not to exercise any selectivity among texts from the four canonical Gospels which might present Judaism in a bad light. I found deficiencies in the film on these scores as well, powerful as it may be in its overall religious impact.

In the last analysis, I can understand how Catholics might not see any anti-Semitic overtones to this film. This is especially true given our long history of devotional Holy Week preaching of the suffering Savior, the seven last words and our embrace of the full humanity of the Incarnate Lord’s entrance into death and resurrection for our salvation.

At the same time, I also fully understand the sense of fear and vulnerability which our Jewish neighbors feel as a result of the Gibson film, especially in light of so many centuries of violent persecution, particularly during our Holy Week celebrations. Personally I found many troublesome elements in this film, as well as some indications of implicit anti-Semitism. For that reason, I cannot recommend this film, especially to our youth.

Perhaps the blessing of it all remains God’s invitation each year at this time to reclaim our personal responsibility for some portion of the sins of the world, and our need for the forgiveness which Christ’s Passion and Resurrection offers a violent world in need of redemption.

One can order a copy of “The Bible, The Jews and the Death of Jesus: A Collection of Catholic Documents” (Publication No. 5-618 @ $11.95 each) by calling toll free the USCCB Publishing Services at 800-235-8722 or visiting the USCCB Internet site at <www.usccb.org>.