People News
By April MacIntyre Jun 6, 2009, 18:41 GMT
Mel Gibson's Holy Family church member speaks out
And Also
Mel Gibson - View Mel Gibson Pictures - Mel Gibson News
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Headlines in People
- 1. Florence Welch steels herself for enormous USA tour
- 2. Russell Crowe besotted by bow
- 3. Fantasy actor Zac Efron
- 4. Taio Cruz would work with Chris Brown
- 5. Pixie Lott clueless about men
Older Talkback
Oh, well, then that's different. It's not irreverent for a parishioner to get up on the altar of God to make a speech. The Blessed Sacrament likes it when people do that.
I think next week, I'll calmly walk up to the altar and make my own speech.
Think about it. If we all calmly walk up to the altar and make speeches, we will be exactly like the Modernists, who we complain are irreverent and abusive to the Blessed Sacrament.
Ordinary Catholic - except that isn't what you are is it?
'I must have missed when Mel Gibson acted as a spokesman on Catholic matters...'
Obviously you did. Just like you missed out on what it means to be Catholic.
'Why does he eat with publicans and sinners?'
What??? Are you comparing Mel Gibson to Christ now? Now whose the one putting him on a pedastel? Do you honestly know what you are talking about? I doubt it.
'The problem with Mel Gibson's Chapel isn't that its patron is/was (so you don't know eh?) in an adulterous relationship. The problem is the obstinate refusal of its directors to submit to the Roman Pontiff.'
Ah yes we forgot modernists don't give a fig for morals or truth do they? Oh and it doesn't seem to worry the 'Pontiff' too much that people don't submit to him. I don't see him worrying about muslims not submitting or Orthodox for that matter. Isn't the 'Roman Pontiff' the one who allows all manner of child abuse etc. to go in the Catholic Church? Is he the one who says not a word when a bishop openly denies that Christ died for our sins?
'How do you behave to your Catholic family and neighbors when they sin?'
Thank God obviously not like you. If you are a Catholic I suggest you go and read how the saints and Church spoke about sin and those who were unrepentant. And this was to sinners who had far more excuse. Who had none of the fame, fortune and 'so-called' good Catholic upbringing that Mel Gibson has had. 'Him to whom much is given, much is expected.' God has given Mel Gibson a lot and God expects a lot in return.
Remember Christ's words? 'Go thou and sin no more.' Take a look at the Jay Leno show and ask yourself whether that is what comes across? At least those who are shocked and horrified at his actions care about his immortal soul. You it seems are quite happy to pat him on the back and say 'Don't worry Mel - off you go and do what you like, after all - Jesus loves ya.' It is to God he must answer and that is why true Catholics fear for him and call him to repent.
'What??? Are you comparing Mel Gibson to Christ now?'
Oh boy, you are clueless. I was comparing Mel Gibson to the tax collectors and sinners, thereby implying that YOU are like the Pharisees who posed the question because they were too 'pious' to associate with [public] sinners.
'Ah yes we forgot modernists don't give a fig for morals or truth do they? Oh and it doesn't seem to worry the 'Pontiff' too much that people don't submit to him. I don't see him worrying about muslims not submitting or Orthodox for that matter. Isn't the 'Roman Pontiff' the one who allows all manner of child abuse etc. to go in the Catholic Church? Is he the one who says not a word when a bishop openly denies that Christ died for our sins?'
So you are a Protestant. What do you think of the popes during the time of the 'Reformation'?
'Thank God obviously not like you. If you are a Catholic I suggest you go and read how the saints and Church spoke about sin and those who were unrepentant.'
I would humbly suggest that you lack the wisdom of the saints and the Church.
'Remember Christ's words? 'Go thou and sin no more.''
You have failed to quote His complete sentence.
'You it seems are quite happy to pat him on the back and say 'Don't worry Mel - off you go and do what you like, after all - Jesus loves ya.' '
Not at all. Strawman.
'It is to God he must answer and that is why true Catholics fear for him and call him to repent.'
If you fear for Mel Gibson's immortal soul then pray for him rather than judging him based on his 'fame, fortune and 'so-called' good Catholic upbringing.'
Yes! At last.
Who said we didn't pray for him?
Humility - you? I don't think so darling.
Now run along and play.
Ordinary Catholic, your defense of the sins and dangers commonly found the New Order makes me believe that you aren't a G family member. It's telling that the thinking is very similarly Modernist. Sin is sin, scandal is scandal and wherever you find it, you reject it. No man has authority over others when they aren't following the Highest authority. Mel should not have authority over others and yet you are defending the fact and him. You would have him go on his merry way to Hell. When someone sets themselves up as their own (false) authority, all collapses as we see. We are called to 'admonish sinners'. I've decided that having movie star owned and run churches is a bad idea. :-)
'To sin is human, but to persist in sin is devilish.'
Saint Catherine of Siena
To Pearl:
As for your statement 'No one was making him an idol, he did it himself - doh!'
Have you ever heard about meta communication? Just in case not, it is communication about communication itself. Here is some meta communication: So your way of engaging in a debate is to dismiss the rational facts introduced by others, restate your own proposition as if the facts that were introduced don't matter at all, and end it all with a 'doh', implying that anyone with half a brain would understand that only your opinion makes sense (and you don't even have to substantiate it). This attitude makes it hard for others to take you seriously. And you just undermined you position further by your last reaction to 'ordinary catholic', which in meta communication terms was not a reaction based on content but an attempt to dismiss and put down. I hope you understand that that type of demeaning attitude tends to reap it. As harshness by the way tends to reap harshness.
As for your (quote): 'Or are you suggesting we should treat him differently'. Your logic is flawed. The one option that you dismissed as if it were improbable is actually the case here. Despite the fact that you assume that I would be treating Mel Gibson 'differently' if I were to treat him with compassion and respect after the mistakes he made, the exact opposite is actually true. I would be treating him differently if I denied him that. When I advocate kindness and compassion it is part of my overall approach to life and human beings. And part of what I believe to be a Christian attitude.
I was wondering at an earlier stage whether the harshness and demeaning attitude you display in this comment section was reserved for Mel Gibson or part of a more general approach to human beings on your part. The fact that you didn't get the logic of something so basis as compassion for those who go wrong shows the latter is the case.
Yours and mine are two totally different philosophical approaches to life. With respect to compassion and mistakes I see it as 'ordinary catholic' states above (quote): 'How do you behave to your Catholic family and neighbors when they sin? If you exhibit the same judgmental, non-charitable attitude that you show on the Internet, you may help drive them further away from God and the Church'.
Not only that, your attitude shows lack of realism and modesty. You say: 'All he had to do was behave like any other decent Catholic husband and father. Not a lot to ask is it?'. I think you might want to check the statistics on Catholics and divorce and Catholics and marital affairs. It is much more 'common' than you imply. And as someone else mockingly put it when he heard Mel Gibson being called a hypocrite for not living up to his own standards (quote): 'My father smoked and yet told me not to: What a hypocrite'.
Diamond,
(I'd rather be a soft pearl than a hard diamond!)
Thank you but no thanks for your psychoanalysis :-). It really is quite unnecessary and to be honest quite unworth answering because it adds up to nothing.
Both you and Ordinary Catholic have been attacking people who have done nothing other than express their shock and horror and at the same time hoping that someone would turn away from sin. They haven't killed anyone, stoned anyone, not even called him names. Just stated plain facts as far as I can see. Sammy above happens also to attend his chapel. Do you? Does OC? Come on let us know just ho much you do know. Or is it the usual 'I will tolerate anything other than those who aren't tolerant' drivel that modern 'Christians' spout?
Yes, our attitudes to life are different. Whoever, whatever, you are you are not a Catholic. Not one that any true Catholic would recognise anyway. You obviously don't believe in sin, or repentance, or purgatory, or hell.
Evidence of your own double-speak and 'metastasis' communication - I did say 'decent' - are you saying that it is decent to conduct extra-marital affairs and divorce and remarry? And as you mention it yes give us the statistics of marital (sic) affairs (I think you might have meant extra-marital) and those ofn divorce, and while you're at it give us the statistics on how many annulments there were in the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II and how many after it. More an indictment of OC's Catholic Church than you might care to disclose I warrant. Just read your own psychobabble and God help you if you understand it - cos I don't.
Pearl, it is actually quite necessary in your case.
Well pearl I have been following this discussion, for someone who talks about righteousness you sure know your way around putting people down.
Why Peter whatever can you mean :-).
That it is basically no point talking to you.
Oh I wasn't aware you were. Sorry if I missed your post. But you know you're right when two sides are so completely opposed there is no point. Guess it is ever the way of the world.
Nice of you to join in anyway.:-)
[This is part of the problem. Put not your trust in princes or Hollywood actors.]
Well I think we can all agree on that. In the meantime, maybe someone ought to investigate why, in this particular Trad Catholic Church, a Hollywood actor has been able to overstep two bishops (reportedly), and a priest doing what is only in their domain to carry out.
In rereading the original 'article' by Anonymous, this just caught my eye.
No one interrupted the Mass that day but still Mel made the woman leave, because he decided that she was there for him? How do you KNOW that, dear Anonymous, if you're reading along? There weren't any scenes made that day except by him. An aside: I have seen Mel remove people, always personally, and he is never calm when he does it. Every week there are many people there 'just for Mel' and they don't get kicked out. In fact, they get welcomed more than those who are there for the Mass alone.
Quote 'I don't know who the source was for this, but I have an idea, since there was a lady there that day who was not a parishioner and obviously was there just for Mel... who, after mass, he asked her to leave... so I suspect this lady was upset and decided to completely exaggerate his announcement to make him look crazy. But I could be wrong about that, perhaps it was someone else... I don't know.'
have been thinking a lot about the two basic attitudes regarding Mels' scandalous public sins. On the one hand are those who just want to cut him slack, be totally understanding, don't criticise, just pray...he is just like any other man, who are we to judge, so on and so forth.
On the other hand are those who are anywhere from angry to outraged over his persistent bad example... feeling he has the obligation to set a good example as he is a Catholic layman of international fame.
Seems to me, (and I am sure many will jump in and correct me, but this is the way I see it) that the people in the first group have accepted Mel's spin about himself. That he is an average guy, like everyone else, he just happens to be absurdly rich, powerful, and famous, but really in his core he is no different than anyone else.
At the heart of this is a profound egalitariansim which has influenced Mel to run away from acceptance of his responsibilities. Famous people ARE held to a higher standard, to be especially responsible in the example they set, than someone who is not. It has always been that way, and always will. As we are all members of the Body of Christ, and all responsible to help others get to heaven, each person must analyse and take stock of their personal circumstances, determine who they affect with their actions, and behave accordingly. Just as parents are obligated to set a good example for their children, everyone is also responsible to set a good example for their fellow man.
If we look at the movies Mel has chosen to make, we see a very strong current of egalitarianism. For instance, Braveheart. William Wallace in real life was noble.. he lived in a castle and wore armor to battle. His brother was a knight who fought with Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce, was NOTHING like portrayed in the movie. I was furious when I saw how he was depicted as a weak kneed jerk. He was so brave and fearless and strong that for many years he won international tournaments, and was titled the champion knight of Christendom.
Compare the facts with Wallace in rag tag clothing, living in a mud hut, dirty matted hair, a strange mixture of uncouth and gentleman (not unlike Mel himself). He couldn't bear to play a noble, so he had to drag that down to a lower level.
I think Mel likes being on the lower level, as then he can claim he has no responsibilties to set an example for others. He likes to pretend, oh its just entertainment, and will not assume responsibilty for the affect his movies will have on the souls of others. Now this same attitude is being played out for real, with his personal actions. It isn't the movies anymore.
I think we are seeing the real Mel Gibson, and he is in a LOT of trouble.
Nice post Trad Cath. Thoughtful, and shows a lot of insight I think.
I agree with Pearl, that was a brilliant insight and also extremely chilling.
What's also eerie, clearly seen on Leno, is that he doesn't care what anyone thinks (even Our Lord), which makes me think of the old saying, 'When you fight with a pig you both get dirty - but the pig likes it' with regard to the fallout he gets from exhibiting his lowest behaviors.
Remember how Mel has repeatedly mentioned in interviews in the past, how he has an inner wild Viking, I think he calls him Bjorn or something like that.
When he was at that recent awards ceremony for men, the Spike awards, I think it was no coincidence at all that Mel chose to come out as a wild Viking, and he put a spin on it , like it was cool.
Like, look at me, I am still attractive when I let the inner Viking rule me! He also had his Miraculous Medal hanging out with a wedding band ( like for WHO? his wife or his MISTRESS?) on it. So now we have the stubborn in sin Mel... look at me, I am going to have it all. Bad boy (cute) Viking, who still is Catholic.
Oh, what utter pride! I feel so sorry for him.
I have time for only one post.
Trad Catholic, you are saying in your last posts that Mr. Gibson did not present himself as 'bigger or better' than others (I agree looking at the information coming from interviews with Gibson himself, as opposed to the speculations / opinions from others), but in fact that he should have done so in a way.
I believe he shouldn't. It would be a lie as well as immodest. He has the flaws he has, and should not lie about them. But then again I have lived in a Calvinistic culture for years that frowns upon any attempt to present yourself as better than others / better than you are. It is viewed as false pride; whatever position in life we are given, in the end we are all essentially equals and in need of reminding each other (and ourselves) of that and of the fact we all have flaws.
Ordinary people can do extraordinary things, that does not make them any less prone to any sin any one else can 'have' or any better equipped to distance themselves from these flaws.
I am not a Catholic but I do not think that (traditional) Catholics have any reason to feel ashamed (I am only saying this because some say they do) that an extraordinary film is made by an otherwise ordinary person. That person was able to share the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus in a way that touched and helped many. Just being who he is was obviously enough to do that. That itself is a gift worth appreciating and a merit within its own right. And if you would let other people put that film down just because its maker is flawed, I believe it would be a wrong done to the content of the film itself.
Jesus said to the penitent Woman caught in adultery 'Go and sin no more'. Why doesn't everyone just pray for the man, and do penance for him, that he'll be the man God wants him to be. Jesus also said, 'He who is without sin can cast the first stone.' Has anyone here ever committed a mortal sin? Has anyone here ever committed a sin? His life is public and is a scandal, but don't you think he knows that? Can't you have pity on the sinner. Stop your aspersions, and look at your own sins. If you don't wish to attend his Chapel, then don't, but prayer and penance can drive out the devil. None of us is without sin, so stop casting stones and start praying for the man. You can hate the sin, but you must love the sinner, in that you would pray for his salvation. That should cause you the deepest pain. I'm so sorry he hasn't given up the Movie World. He would be much better off without it. More good is wrought by prayer than by hateful speech. Look at your own souls!
Your Talkback on this Story