People News
Mel Gibson's Holy Family church member speaks out
By April MacIntyre Jun 6, 2009, 18:41 GMT
On the Web
Mel Gibson - View Mel Gibson Pictures - Mel Gibson News
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Headlines in People
- 1. Whitney Houston earns half staff flag order from Gov. Christie (VIDEO)
- 2. 2012 MAGIC Fashion and Apparel Trade Show Pictures
- 3. Matt Groening Honored with a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame Pictures
- 4. Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine clarifies Rick Santorum remark
- 5. Sienna Miller Is Pregnant
Older Talkback
page: 1
Can Catholics have their own private churches where they can browbeat the priest for hire into giving them the sacraments when they are in a state of flagrant, public, and serious mortal sin? What a deal. Anything, I guess, can be bought for money.
All the parishioners are a bunch of star-gazing acolytes who would barter the deepest principles of their religion for a little fake traditionalism a la Mel's sensational antics. They think they're better than the common herd of wife-swappers... well, now their patron is one of them and they turn into a bunch of cowering mice.
This seems to me to have the ring of truth to it... but the main premise bothers me. Are we to sit back and feel no shock or sorrow, when the man who is arguably the world's most prominent traditional Catholic causes great scandal and terrible harm by his stubborn and flagrant bad example?? Not just to his sons and family, but to the whole world.
I have read on various websites how priests are having to give counsel to their parishioners not to fall into depression and despair, because the man they upheld in their minds as a serious Catholic has had such an extreme, public and obstinate fall from grace. I pray for Mel that he repudiate his errors and that he come back to the bosom of the Church. I don't hate him; I am sickened and sad over what he has done.
We must judge, and at times severely, in order to protect ourselves and loved ones from falling into similar sins... this is what scandal is. It doesn't mean simply shock; it means that the scandalous act/s have weakened the faith and strength of others to resist evil. And this, regrettably, is what Mel has done.
So we resist his bad example, and so we speak against what he has done and continues to do. This might be gossip in some cases, but in others it is a defense against our being weakened by his bad example.
And no, I am not a member of Holy Family Chapel. I speak as a fellow traditional Catholic.
God bless you , Mel. Come back....
I agree with comments. The notion of having a patron with so much power that he can expel people from a church for what he calls 'gossiping,' after such a flagrant breach of moral conduct by any standard, is frightening. Maybe I don't know much about Traditional Catholicism, but in all the churches I know of, people aren't cast out for theft, much less 'gossip.' Unless the theft is of such magnitude they are required to serve a sentence. Was he cast out for driving while intoxicated, and endangering lives three years ago? Where does Mel's (a fellow parishioner with a bigger bank balance) power end in this church?
.. gossip is also viewed as a serious sin in the Church.'
You don't say! If gossip is a serious sin what does the church think about adultery and lying? Everything this man has said and claimed over the years has been nothing but a lie.
What a disappointing man he has turned out to be - a drunken, lying serial-adulterer who made a fortune out of selling Jesus Christ. He has brought nothing but shame upon himself, his family, his church and his beliefs.
And of course you're going to defend him because you're just another butt-kissing, cringing, obsequious sycophant that he's no doubt surrounded by. So play deaf and dumb and you will receive your invitation to stay on at the church.
There's a big difference between 'gossiping' and attending a church for the sole purpose of spying on a celebrity and selling the story to a tabloid.
Should Gibson also let his stalkers go to the chapel?
To Ordinary Catholic... (I think you really are a trad Catholic?) Re allowing stalkers to go to his chapel, of course not. But the problem with the statement (sounds like it came from a protective family member??) is that we are left with the impression that we should all bury our heads (and brains!) in the sand and have no reaction to his ... well maybe hypocrisy is a harsh word.. but something like that. I get the uncomfortable feeling his attitude is 'Do as I say, don't do as I do' and that just doesn't fly.
Has he forgottem he made TPOTC????!!!! People looked up to him, and how do you think they should feel after seeing him go on Leno and defend his fathering of a child outside marriage?! No embarassment, no apparent shame! This is AWFUL.
Fraudulent, 'Maybe I don't know much about Traditional Catholicism, but in all the churches I know of, people aren't cast out for theft, much less 'gossip.''
No one is being cast out for the sin of gossip. A person was asked to leave for stalking a celebrity and selling exaggerated stories to a tabloid. An obsessed, angry fan shouldn't go the same church as her celebrity target. That's just common sense.
Blind sheeple who are Melstruck bug me. I am also a long time chapel member, and was also there. While there was a definite spin on it, Mel was indeed very angry and pacing and it would have been much better if he hadn't done it. It's always about the drama there. It was the priest's place to reprimand us not his but the chapel is not priest run but Mel and Hutton run. What they say goes and that is that. The old timers had nothing to do with leaks but he threatened to make it private which shuts it down for most of us in reality. In my opinion it has turned into a celebrity cult, not just a place to find the true Mass like it used to be. Having to swallow Gibsonite theology to stay there isn't healthy or true Catholicism. The priests are bought and paid for and turn a blind eye to the elephants in the room. Why is it considered 'gossip' when Mel himself announced Oksana was pregnant, showing no shame and even joking about it on Leno? To think of what Mel and his Dad have said about the pope, but he turns into a whiner when people dis him, poor baby.
Chapel members aren't allowed to speak or to show normal shock and outrage at what is considered horrific behavior to most Catholics without being accused of being the enemy. He should keep his sins to himself like he used to and please leave the rest of us out of it. This is too weird and I'm leaving
Trad Catholic, I've never even been to a Latin mass.
I think you're commenting on 2 separate issues. The first is the possible merit of STRANGERS admonishing a famous layman who is causing scandal, but I don't think this relates to the incident in Gibson's chapel. The second issue is the safety/privacy concerns for the Gibson family because of the weirdos, starf***ers, and leeches who seek him out.
P.S. About the Leno interview, as a Catholic you should know that Gibson's sin is out of wedlock sex, not the conception of an illegitimate child. While Gibson didn't express shame for the adultery, he didn't defend it either.
An obsessed, angry fan shouldn't go the same church as her celebrity target. That's just common sense ------------
You're absolutely right. No they shouldn't - only ethically challenged and blindly supportive fans ought to go to the same church as their morally degenerate narcissistic celebrity target. After all, hypocrites of a feather must always flock together.
I wish TPOTC had been made by anyone other than Mel Gibson.
ordinary Catholic, what are you, a professional apologist for Mel Gibson?
I hope it's OK to discuss two issues in one post?
And why shouldn't STRANGERS admonish a FAMOUS PUBLIC figure who has SCANDALIZED the majority of the Catholic world??? Must we know him personally? No, of course not.
It has everything to do with the incident at Holy Family Chapel. He didn't like the heat of upset Catholics, so he lashed back. Not pretty.
The safety issue you keep raising is a total red herring. I don't believe personal harm is intended to Mel and his family, unless by a crazed fan, and he does have security to deal with that, no? If you want to talk about harm to his family... there is physical danger and spiritual danger. He has single handedly plunged his family into grave spiritual danger due to his obstinate, scandalous behaviour. It would be one thing if he had an oops monent; but he has flaunted his adulterous relationship without shame to the whole world, right down to a red carpet appearance with public displays of physical affection. HE brought his sins into the public arena.
Gibson's sin is ADULTERY. He should pro-actively CONDEMN it as he gave public scandal. The responsibilities of a figure in the public eye are far more stringent than that of an average person. He gave scandal and gives scandal and he can't decide he should be treated like Joe Shmo (my apologies to all the nice Joes out there) as though his actions aren't constantly being observed on a global scale.
Sam, you write 'Chapel members aren't allowed to speak or to show normal shock and outrage at what is considered horrific behavior to most Catholics without being accused of being the enemy.'
Sorry, but this is a hysterical rationalization for gossip. Mel Gibson's confessor should admonish him, but what good does it for either his soul or yours to spread rumors about his marriage or affair? Will you persuade him to leave his girlfriend by denouncing him at church as an adulterer? Doubtful. Remove the plank from your own eye first.
The reason that Gibson isn't 'keep[ing] his sins to himself like he used to' is because he is going to be a father again. The only other choice available for him is to push for an abortion or to quietly pay off the mother for her silence and then not raise his new child as his own. Clearly, his responsibility as a Catholic is to acknowledge the child.
Huh? Dear Ordinary Catholic, aka Gibson family member doing damage control: I didn't denounce him. He denounced himself. You must have missed Leno.
I didn't do anything but go to Mass and ended up being part of an embarrassing public spectacle, completely inappropriate for those of us who like to remain inside and pray. I didn't sign on for this. Normal 'ordinary Catholics' want nothing to do with his shame and I can only imagine what the bishop thought. He gives us all a bad name and so do the sycophants like you. I'm loving the common sense of the other comments. As for his safety, there is security but he seems to prefer the drama of taking matters into his own hands.
Revel, the Church is a hospital for sinners.
Trad Catholic, your post exemplifies the stereotype of Traditionalist Catholics being judgmental and uncharitable.
Sam, you expressed what I have been thinking all along; ordinary Catholic is no doubt a Gibson family member. So much for truthfulness... never been to a Latin Mass, eh?
It has of course occurred to me that Mel Gibson is concerned first and foremost with making sure his child is brought safely into the world... is that gold digger threatening abortion? (How could he have been so blind to a **** like her?) Or extorting money already? That would not be surprising either. I am guessing he can't be liking it that in the course of less than 10 days she has filed two paltry lawsuits and is going to do a story and photo-shoot for a women's magazine. Sounds like paradise is over.
So he has made his bed of leaves, and has to lie in it. Why not ackowledege his culpability and go from there? Why is it necesary to act so arrogantly? It is the continued hard headed obstinacy that causes the worst scandal. Everyone knows that people make mistakes; I don't think this issue would have blown up the way it has, if Gibson had been upfront with his shame, and then it would have died down eventually. But the path he has chosen is wreaking havoc.
When all is said and done, we all, including Mel Gibson, are left with just our naked souls before God.
Sam,
So now I must be related to Mel Gibson to protest all this self-righteous posturing coming from traditionalist Catholics? I'm not related to the man, nor have I ever met him.
And now you are contradicting yourself. First, you write that Gibson showed no shame on Leno, and later you wrote that he denounced himself. (Unless by 'denounce himself' you mean tell the truth about his girlfriend's pregnancy instead of terminating or covering it up and lying.) You also insist that you didn't denounce Gibson yourself, yet earlier you whined about not being 'allowed to speak or to show normal shock and outrage at what is considered horrific behavior to most Catholics without being accused of being the enemy.'
The sense I get from your posts is that your grip with Gibson isn't that he committed adultery in the first place, it's that he was sloppy enough get his mistress pregnant, which forced the mess to become public and embarrass good traditional Catholics like yourself.
ordinary Catholic said:
'Trad Catholic, your post exemplifies the stereotype of Traditionalist Catholics being judgmental and uncharitable.'
St Teresa said: 'He who loves, hates; and he who hates, fights!'
I am fighting the terrible example given by one of the most famous Catholic layman in the world. He is both famous and now sadly, infamous by his own actions. I do pray for him, I am not hateful.
You, ordinary Catholic, speak in sophistries; you twist the right interpretation of Catholic mores; you attempt to mitigate and neutralize the good, healthy reaction of Catholics who are opposed to the bad example which Gibson is giving.
You're right. I had quite forgotten that fact. The church is supposed to be a hospital. But there are times when quarantining the infected becomes necessary in order to preserve the rest. A little leaven leavens the whole lump scripture says. A little rot will rot the lot, in time. And scripture also tells us that an 'elder' ought to be 'above reproach, and the husband of one wife'. This church is OWNED (seemingly in every possible way) by a man who, whilst not only practicing adultery, has the nerve to parade his pregnant mistress to the world without one iota of public shame - shame towards his God and his family. Instead of humility he displays peeved hurt - wounded pride!
And you expect anyone with any conscience before God to turn a blind eye to his selfish, selfish behaviour. Adultery is not a sickness like alcoholism - it's a choice - a selfish, self-centred choice.
As for his child out of wedlock. From what I see from the internet, this will not be Mel's first 'bastard' child. We are led to believe he has (possibly at the very least) two others.
Scripture tells us that pride always comes before a fall. I think Mel's full of it. Though God had promised to forgive if we humble ourselves before Him,admit fault and pray. There's always hope and I'm still hoping and praying for him.
WOW THATS GETTIGN NASTY!
I am not catholic nor will i ever go in a church full as it is of hypocrite.
Look at htis calign themselves trad catho and very catho and less catho, darn! do you beleive or do oyu not beleive?
who gives a flying f. about the rest? I dont!
vatican 1 or 2 who cares?
The vatican is dead since they burned the templat master Jeacques de Molay for fianncial reasons..
There cant be a churhc of God there ever since. And they never show remorse for it. So its doen with it.
Now about sam and Georgessss.
greate of oyu to speak out loud, i beleive wha toyu say is true, now the question remain of who that angry lady was and if she was oksana as suggested by another sam at celbitchy, and told as untrue by a 'sammy' later on at the same place..
Now htis. Is that woman denying that any of this hapeend lying?
was she paid by the church to do so or send by mel Gibson?
Oh mine.
For me to see are all the news planted in the radar online and the national nequierer and People magazine since august 2008, doen by oksana.
first only pictures and when her ID wa sout, long articles.
Sh eis tryign to control thmedia and in dping os to ocntrol the public opinion.
Who else than her had photographers friends form he rwork as modl that sh ecould contact and stage ehrself coming in an dout MG trailer? posign in fornt of the cam totaly in Boston set both in august and novmeebr 2008.
Who else had inside info form Mel that he had a feud with his wife who threatened hom of divorce at thankgiving , but oksana? ANd who sold hte story ot the national enquierer who gave a very bad image of Robyn in an article that pushed the divorce..
oksana did that.
HSe knew of robyn threats ot mel if she was seen again near his trailer and she staged her second apperance there in novemebr sold ot .. radar online agian. and in march again to radar online the pics of her and MG on the beach.. none of them showing her own face which is very weird.
taken the 4. of march those pics only show up hte 15th of march, thats 10 days.. the time for her ot coem bacl fofrm guanacaste acknioledge the pics and put the story that goes with it as ' a witness' and leave sherman oaks fast.. she knew that robyn will file for divorce.
she planted the story there alos in the national enquier that hrey were separated since 3 years!
she staged it all.
every week for 5 weeks, she has planted 2 new stories, in 2 mag all of them of very persoanl character.
by dopign os she control it. the soties are characterised by their sources or lack of it 'sources say, friend of oksana frend of MG' but its her alone behind it with her signature making MG looks like a fool and her like a saint.
the god mum nad good wife.
so she doesnt live with MG but thats her own choice and she wants Mle into rehab 'or else' and he wil do so because 2he loves her a lot and will od al for her' yeah. we dont ebelive that.
And the DNA test Its not MG who wants it but 'pressure form friends and family and churhc goers on him!' becasue 'he love her so much'.. oh mine! and she tlak of a DNA test AFTER the child is born thus such a paternitty test can be done after 10 weeks already and an aminiotic test on the 5th month.
But sh eneed to looks bankable for a few more months for th elawyers and the women magazins
Revel, I have no wish to defend Gibson's support of an independent chapel or his lack of public shame. However, I do think it would be different if the woman wasn't carrying his child.
'Adultery is not a sickness like alcoholism - it's a choice - a selfish, self-centred choice.'
Adultery may by a selfish choice, but addicts struggle with sexual addictions as well as alcohol dependencies. Risky sexual behavior is often found in alcoholics, not to mention those with bi-polar disorder. I'm not trying to excuse Gibson's actions by saying that 'he's sick' or 'he can't help it,' but people can carry unequal culpability for the same sins. Only God can judge.
'As for his child out of wedlock. From what I see from the internet, this will not be Mel's first 'bastard' child. We are led to believe he has (possibly at the very least) two others.'
Woah now, that's calumny. Mel Gibson has only been accused of fathering one other child out of wedlock, Carmel Sloane.
she needs to looks bankable ofr 5 more months so that she can get a name ofr ehrslef at least thats what she thinks and try ot do.
I dont think sh eis pregy and ia m sure that she wasnt pregnant at al in april
i am very sure that if she becae pregy adffterward it wasnt of mel gisbon but of music producer david foster.
convenient name lol
i dont understand what is goign on cause mel isnt livign with ehr and she is trying ot make mpney in all kind of way and is extortign money form him of course for all the info she got about himm and his family.
she si also stagignherself and the situation by controlign the media.
her signature is clear extreme articles á la oksana pochepa, with her the good guy and him th ebad guy with htings who do not make sensse at all and doesnt add up.
they arent livign together so he dont want her thats clear.
we never saw her pregy so i doubt there is pregnacy.
whe oyu are super skiny as she is you cant be 3 month pregy without showing a thing.
and in worse she had loads of sheets wraped yup around her waist on the picutres form the wolverine premiere.
so its all a farce.
i do hope htat she od not show he rface at agoura hill.
i can tell oyu tha tin private Mel Gibson call her a s-l-u-t and the alike and that he od not like her at all.
so there is a dicrepency between what hwe hear and what is really going on.
what he said at leno wasnt in his plan he wanted to bash ehr out but couldnt in case the kid wa shis but what he said there was staged by her.
like a praisign of he rmusical talent. thus shenever played rachmanikovan di seriosuly doubt that Mle Gibson ever heard music by the guy.
I think h elike bette rto losten ot Bon jovi and bruce springsteen.
she cant paly thats evident oyu have to practice 4 ot 8 hours a day everyday to remain a good classical musician no mater the instrument
and what sh edoes is to pise naked on a piano, htats nto part of the music conservatorium education.
that training she got it else where.
and thats all she can do.. wiht her hands..
i do not think that you can play piano with long nails..
she is a fake an hoax on two legs.
now how on earth coudl MG be soo fooled and ofr so long and what can he do now and ios he doing now?
i a, pretty sure that he wants her evicted form sherman oaks.
and he would like to see her evicted form USA as well.
sh eis on limited time here, she has enfglsih citizenship not american and she can only stay based on ehr adess at sherman oaks and her fausle meembership atr record label. her plan is to give birth on american soil so that the child is american and by extension she can apply for american citizenship
she is an imigrant trying to cheat the system.
i think that she is clinicaly insane.
her behaviour is the one of soemen obseesed wiht fame an dmoney and with breakign marriages and creatign turmoil totaly indifferent ot the sufferign she cause others and only lokign ofr publicitty of the worse kind jsut like a psychopath and a serial killer do!
david foster is divorcing his wife because of her too.. and he also bought her a house, in Santa Monica.
isnt it crazy?
plan A and B ..
unless she got somehting very seriosu on him, i do not see why he dont evict her form his house in sherman hoaks
I hope there is no child, and that if there is, MG is not the father of it.
because it will be a nightmare not only for him but for all his other kids and family to ahve to deal with the descendant of a who.. and to ahve to hear from her for years to come.
a lifelong hell.
she got him because she had no sense of moral and absolutly no ethic.
I can also add that she has been stalkign him for a very long while, never givign up and doing the poor d. foster in between.
Where did all the comments go??? Too hot??
ordinary Catholic said: [No one is being cast out for the sin of gossip. A person was asked to leave for stalking a celebrity and selling exaggerated stories to a tabloid. An obsessed, angry fan shouldn't go the same church as her celebrity target. That's just common sense.]
anonymously parishioner said: 'He calmly walked up to the altar after mass finished and simply asked for everyone not to gossip about his personal affairs.'
Since when do parishioners walk up to the altar after mass, and ask everyone not to gossip about them?
anonymously parishioner said: 'What he did say, is that if he continues to see gossip about him in the media... that is, information that could only come from people who are at the church... he would make the church 'by invitation only' - not 'shut it down.''
Again, if there was a stalker (and the article refers to star gazers, and business opportunists), or any other problem why didn't he talk to his Priest, and let HIM decide how to handle things, like everyone else? How would a parishioner have it their power to make that decision anyway?
Ordinary Catholic.
I don't underestimate the problems caused by both alcoholism and bi-polar depression - I have three friends who suffer from bi-polar, and one who is also an alcoholic.
But here's the thing, Mel Gibson has no excuse for not seeking help, both for his alcoholism, 'sex-addiction' and his bi-polar condition. On medication and with therapy my friends are able to maintain a steady course. What's Mr Gibson's excuse for not availing himself of every means at his disposal to stay on track? Unfortunately it's easier to blame everything on an illness in order to avoid taking responsibility for one's own actions. And unless he loses contact with reality and becomes psychotic, he is still considered legally sane and responsible for his actions.
Scripture says to whom much has been given much is required. I think more than anything else I am overwhelmed by his total disregard for what God has given him. This man has been given so much in this life. He had a wife who seemed to have stuck by him no matter what. He's got seven seemingly normal and healthy kids. He has a large family. He has an outlet for his creativity, which he gets paid for. And he's possibly the most gifted actor on the planet. Yet he's still behaving like an immature self-serving, irresponsible ingrate. And please don't tell me that impregnating his mistress justifies divorcing his wife and 'abandoning' his family. By the way, on Youtube under, 'Mel Gibson's illegitimate son' you will find a video and comments. And I do believe Carmel Sloane is his offspring. After all we know that Mel, as a 'good' Catholic does not believe in birth control - however, adultery, it seems, is optional.
I thought he had changed. I thought he had a real relationship with Jesus Christ (not merely religion). But he fooled us all. He pretended to be a real Christian just long enough to make the movie TPOTC from which he made his money and it's been a downward slide into the gutter ever since. We are judged by our fruits.
Truthfully, he's becoming more an object of ridicule every day and that's because his behaviour is that of an old buffoon. And all of this comes at a tremendous cost to the Christian world.
Christ is ridiculed because of our behaviour.
Very odd... yesterday as I was posting and reading the other comments, all the comments disappeared... a friend of mine who was posting had the same thing happen to her, and she is on another continent, so it wasn't just my computer. (no, not the crazy typist poster... someone else. I am NOT friends with a body of water~heh!)
Now I can see them again, and others were posting when we couldn't. What gives? (I posted the short post about the comments being too hot, on Google's cached page.) The page here on M&C ended with the word Talkback... nothing else showed for about 18 hours or so.
Well, whatever...
ordinary Catholic, you know far too much about traditional Catholics to not be one... you also know way too much about Mel Gibson, speaking with assurance as to what goes on with him, and his chapel, and his life. You give yourself away repeatedly with your terms and the way you express yourself. Sam is right, hello Gibson family member!
Revel, I agree totally with your post, and the most poignant part is the last line, that Christ is ridiculed for our behaviour. This just made my heart ache, because it is so true. When we Christians do not lead Christian lives, it gives the blasphemeous, the wicked, the cynics, and the weak, fodder and sustenance for their attacks on Christ and His Church.
It is so ironic that Mel should be the cause of this, as he helped draw so many closer to God, and for what? He is now a rock of scandal.
He has done harm to the spiritual lives of
ALL Christians, not just Catholics. The movie was watched by more Protestants
than Catholics, and it helped very many of them... it was healing and brought
about many conversions from lives of sin, to draw them closer to God. And now...
by his example, he has undone much of the good he did. It was people who were
weak in their faith who needed it the most, and they are the ones who are most
vulnerable even now. It is a real tragedy.
To clarify, we don't know that Mel Gibson is mentally ill in a clinical sense. Alcohol is toxic and can create symptoms similar to bi-polar disorder, for example. It's also a known depressant. I think however, there's evidence to suggest he may have profound psychological problems, and I think it's fair to say he should seek help in that area. If these stories are true this isn't the first, and won't be the last opportunist to cross his path otherwise. But it may be a symptom of his spiritual and emotional state.
The comments disappeared and now are back. That's weird.
I'm not going to even try to decipher the post(s) by Ocean. They make my head hurt.
Revel, I appreciate your comments on bi-polar disorder, but I still maintain that neither you nor I know what Mel Gibson struggles with. Yes, Mel's publicity team has always put forward the image of Mel having a happy family life and marriage, but obviously that wasn't completely true. And I don't see why you are accusing him of divorcing his wife, let alone abandoning his family. Robyn sued Mel for divorce, and I think that if Mel had his way, there would be no divorce.
Back to the illegitamate children issue, there are no youtube results for Mel Gibson illegitimate son. You still haven't supported your slanderous accusation.
And it's really hard for me to take seriously the argument that Mel made TPOTC for the money. He sacrificed and lost too much from the fallout from that film.
Maybe you feel angry and betrayed by Mel Gibson for his failings, but that doesn't give you the right to spread slander and detraction.
Trad Catholic, why do you continue to accuse me of lying? There's nothing I know about your ilk or Mel Gibson that isn't abundantly obvious on the internet. There's nothing like the cesspool of Rad Trad blogs and message boards to turn a person off from the movement. Paranoid much? I guess that's something you have in common with Mel.
Fraudulent, if you go to the Mel Gibson wikipedia article, he has said he is 'manic depressive.' That's why I brought up bi-polar disorder.
'Ordinary Catholic' (who I don't think is very ordinary) Revel said it perfectly. Lots of good posts here and I am glad to see them back.
' But here's the thing, Mel Gibson has no excuse for not seeking help, both for his alcoholism, 'sex-addiction' and his bi-polar condition. On medication and with therapy my friends are able to maintain a steady course. What's Mr Gibson's excuse for not availing himself of every means at his disposal to stay on track? Unfortunately it's easier to blame everything on an illness in order to avoid taking responsibility for one's own actions. And unless he loses contact with reality and becomes psychotic, he is still considered legally sane and responsible for his actions.'
Mel has the terrible handicap of being a successful producer, director and actor in Hollywood with all the temptations that go along with that but he also has all the means of escaping it. He isn't exactly a prisoner in a gulag being tortured until he gives in. He also has the grace to avoid sin, which is Catholic teaching. He was raised as a Catholic and knows better, unlike most in Hollywood. God gives us all the grace necessary to stay sin free each day, it's up to us to respond to it, and to say otherwise is not only doubting God but also selling Mel short. I give him more credit than you do. He has mental quirks and issues but strikes me as very intelligent and sane or else someone should lock him up for his own sake and his family's sake. He should clear out all his YES MEN and sycophants and decide who really loves him and isn't just USING him. A person who loves him would remind him of his Faith daily. Admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy. I think he'd probably be more sane and a lot happier (true happiness) with some inner peace and honesty. He is no longer a free man but has landed himself in bondage to sin. Oksana never was free. His creativity is going to shrivel away in this mess, mark my words.
Ocean is posting rants all over the boards in different names and sounds like she might get a pass for true insanity. Just ignore
Sam
Will someone address my query about Mel making personal requests at the alter, after service and announcing a possible change in the list of who worships there and who doesn't. Is this standard in Trad Catholicism? In every other place of worship it's the clergy who steer the vessel, not parishioners, even the patrons. Try doing that at St. Patricks. This set-up almost seems symptomatic of the man's problems.
To: Orindary Catholic
I did not lie to you. My apologies, I gave you the incorrect title to the link re Mel's illegitimate son.
It is 'Mel Gibsons love child in sexy dancing shocker'. If you read the comment by his half/step brother for confirmation. I'm sure he could be sued for claiming to be Mel's son if indeed he is not.
To Ordinary Catholic
PS/ I do know that technically Robyn Gibson is divorcing Mel Gibson. But what choice did this poor woman have? Seems she's spent her entire marriage with a man who is a serial womanizer, alcoholic and a bi-polar sufferer. How much more public shame is she expected to handle? Dear God, she deserves a medal of honour for putting up with him for as long as she did.
But what Gibson did to her by parading his pregnant mistress to the world BEFORE the divorce is final has shown the world this man has no class, no decency, no character and ABSOLUTELY NO CONSCIENCE.
I read an article the other day that likened the manic phase of bi-polar to sociopathy/psychopathy/anti-social personality disorder - they have one thing in common - NO CONSCIENCE.
He's was once a very handsome man and, I thought, and still think, he's an extraordinarily good actor, but that means nothing now. And what I think we all dread is seeing him in a few years like Nick Nolte and David Hassel(whatever), lying drunk in their vomit and urine in public places.
Handsome is as handsome does.
This will be my last post. Nice chatting with you Ordinary Catholic and God bless.
Revel,
nice chatting with you too. I'll only add that the title of the youtube video looks like a joke to me. I'm fairly confident that the stepbrother comment by ollywog82 was facetious.
Fraudulent. your point was well taken but there are so many good ones on these boards it's hard to know which to applaud without being redundant. No it is not usual behavior for an ordinary Catholic to stand up in front of the altar to reprimand fellow church-goers, especially in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He made his problems everyone's regardless of the fact that there were many people there, children most of all, who had never believed the rumors, don't watch Leno, never read the Enquirer and had no need to know. It was all about him, not Our Lord or anyone else.
Because of one person who is reporting, all were admonished. What is being ignored is that Mel has been the active head of a huge religious movement that I now believe is dangerous. Preserving the old Mass is just a smoke screen because nothing else is preserved. To be taken seriously he should have been careful his life was beyond reproach but he has done the opposite and expects even other Catholics to applaud him like the audience in Leno then follow him to oblivion. He has made Christianity a laughing stock once again. It is quite like Luther and Henry VIII
Fraud, Revel and Trad Catholic - your comments leave little else to be said. Bravo.
Ordinary Catholic, I am more convinced than ever you are a family member. The defense of this Judas is like spitting in Christ's face. Who would pick on Robyn, insinuating how miserable poor wittle Melly boy was, but a family member? Why doesn't Hutton speak out and reaffirm the Catholic teachings against adultry and fornication? He benefits from this, that's why
Hold on there, mister. Where did I pick on Robyn?
Sammy I know this is not protocol for ordinary Catholics, I doubt it's protocol for any house of worship on earth. It's reeks of a cult, one person of power makes the rules for many, and implements and suspends them at will. It's not about God, guiding principles, love, spirit, or even due process. Anyway thanks for the discourse.
It would seem that Ordinary Catholic is in the 'know' somehow about the situation. Not Mrs Leno by any chance? If you are truly a Catholic then you know that yes it is wrong to indulge in malicious gossip. But what is gossip? It is idle talk or rumour. Can you honestly say that this is idle talk or rumour? It may have been before Mr Gibson went walkabout with his girlfriend or appeared on the Leno show but is isn't anymore. It is also of grave concern to a lot of traditional Catholics who looked up to the man as an example of what a traditional Catholic could be - not any more and it has caused a lot of people a lot of hurt Who can blame them for crying out against such a let down.
Christ did not say we were not to judge, to say such a thing shows ignorance. We are to judge with righteous judgement those who sin and break God's laws. We are also to make sure that when we judge we do it mercifully but nevertheless with justice and that we have looked into our own faults first. Those who condemn others for judging are usually making rash judgements themselves.
Mel Gibson set himself up as 'spokesman' on Catholic matters, he built a church, his father has a website dedicated to saying what is wrong with other Catholics. This gives others the right to judge him on his actions and unfortunately his actions speak volumes.
If I was at that chapel I would sure get out now because it is not a place where true Catholic values and true Catholic discipline can florish free from constraint. Let alone expose children to such example.
Pearl
It is naive and offensive to all of those who like Mel Gibson to suggest that only his family members, close friends, or those dependent on him, could ever find any reason to stand up for him or judge him positively as a human being. That is the worst prejudice. Many, many people have sympathy for Mel Gibson and many, many people are fed up with these continual attacks on him. We should not make people our idols, when we do so we are wrong ourselves. A number of people might have expected Mel Gibson to adhere to high standards, many others however never required that as a condition to accept him as an adequate, likable and dignified human being. Just like they don't judge others that way. Did he put himself on a pedestal? I have listened to many interviews, throughout many years, and if anyone is continually telling us that Mel Gibson is extremely flawed it is Mel Gibson himself. I could give a long list to support that statement for anyone who doubts it, but I won't. Mel Gibson did not elect himself to be called the perfect Catholic, he just opted to share his vision about the crucifixion. And if only those who are perfect may share that story and their interpretation of it, we might as well never tell the story again. No-one would measure up to the requirements according to the Christian concept of sin.
Also, all that is mentioned here in the comment section is common knowledge for anyone who truly takes the trouble to be informed, suggesting that being thoroughly informed is somehow 'suspect' is a wrong doing. If we are going to go that way I would have to say that it is more suspect to judge while not having this overall and specific knowledge. The less one knows about any matter, the less accurate one can judge the case.
No one was making him an idol, he did it himself - doh! All he had to do was behave like any other decent Catholic husband and father. Not a lot to ask is it? Or are you suggesting that we should somehow treat him differently? Now which is it? You see whichever way you cut it - he is in that position which God put him in and he has responsibilities. You can't have it both ways - you can't expect people to treat him like an ordinary man if he doesn't behave like one.
Pearl,
'It is also of grave concern to a lot of traditional Catholics who looked up to the man as an example of what a traditional Catholic could be ... Who can blame them for crying out against such a let down'
This is part of the problem. Put not your trust in princes or Hollywood actors.
'We are to judge with righteous judgement those who sin and break God's laws. We are also to make sure that when we judge we do it mercifully but nevertheless with justice and that we have looked into our own faults first. Those who condemn others for judging are usually making rash judgements themselves.'
Is this closer to Landover Baptist or Quentin Tarantino???
'Mel Gibson set himself up as 'spokesman' on Catholic matters, he built a church, his father has a website dedicated to saying what is wrong with other Catholics'
I must have missed when Mel Gibson acted as a spokesman on Catholic matters. He must have done this in the same way he set himself up as a spokesman for Medieval Scottish history, Mayan affairs, and wacky cops with a death wish.
'If I was at that chapel I would sure get out now because it is not a place where true Catholic values and true Catholic discipline can florish free from constraint. Let alone expose children to such example.'
Why does he eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
The problem with Mel Gibson's chapel isn't that its patron is/was in an adulterous relationship. The problem is the obstinate refusal of its directors to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
'No one was making him an idol, he did it himself - doh! All he had to do was behave like any other decent Catholic husband and father. Not a lot to ask is it? Or are you suggesting that we should somehow treat him differently?'
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.
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!
Trad not mad:
I agree. I think an important theme of 'The Passion of the Christ' is even to not cast stones and to stand up AGAINST hate (speech).
This is a quote from internet about 'The Passion'(to M&C: not an article from another site):
To see any event as a reason to divide different groups into categories of either deserving or undeserving, one must believe such distinctions are possible to begin with. Who-ever leaves from the assumption that such black-and-white categorizations are impossible, can’t interpret them as the cause of any event.
So what is a bigot? A bigot is a person who holds a view of life that says he is better than the ones he opposes, his conviction that he is different, ‘above’ (that German word ‘über’), that he couldn’t be or do the same, is even the excuse he uses to look down on and reject them. Mel Gibson, who supposedly thinks he is better than Jews, on the other hand uses his OWN hand in The Passion to drive the nail through Jesus’ hand in that gruesome, much talked about scene: An indication that his beliefs are the exact opposite of those of a bigot. He doesn’t view himself as ‘better’ and ‘above’ at all. This point of view in fact fits within a commonly held belief in America that we are all essentially equals, that we are ALL capable of both the best and the worst - under the right or wrong conditions that is. It is a suggestion that offends some, that shouldn’t be used however to suggest that MG is a bigot while a bigot does the exact opposite of claiming to be (capable of) the same.
The vision that Mel Gibson is singling out Jews doesn’t fit within his overall choices as a producer and director anyway. Facts are the fabric reality is made of, they should not be skipped as irrelevant somehow: Mel Gibson ALWAYS portrays abusers as fiendish somehow, he portrays blue-eyed gentiles that way. He also focuses on ALL sorts of abuse and wrong doings, in ALL sorts of stories. He was even going to finance and produce a mini-series about a Jewish woman who survives the holocaust (an anti-Semite is as likely to make a choice for that as the democrats are to pay for and support the campaign of the republicans). MG is in other words not at all pointing to Jews as the common enemy, he is pointing to hatred itself as our shared enemy - as the enemy of all people alike. In the biblical accounts of The Passion, as well as in the film, Jesus indeed does not retaliate, He instead forgives. Mel Gibson has stated over and over again that this, to him at least, is the crux of the story. He even calls Jesus the ultimate hero for rejecting hatred and choosing the other way instead, he calls him our ultimate example in that regard. He also stresses the fact that we are all the same, by specifically introducing a flashback in the film in which Jesus says to a crowd ready to stone a woman: “He who is without sin throw the first stone”. In other words, ‘don’t put yourself above others’.
Some people say that Mel Gibson could have chosen other biblical accounts to stress the above, this is not true however - the other stories would lack conviction in the sense that it is no accomplishment at all to be kindhearted and gentile, to forgive, for anyone who hasn’t or has hardly been wronged, it is only a measure of inner strength, wisdom and success for anyone who has been.
Did the Apostle Paul not judge and 'cast the first stone' when he said in 1 Corinthians 5:
New International Version
hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
New American Standard Bible
I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
International Standard Version
turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.
GOD'S WORD Translation
hand such a person over to Satan to destroy his corrupt nature so that his spiritual nature may be saved on the day of the Lord.
King James Bible
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
American King James Version
To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
American Standard Version
to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Bible in Basic English
That this man is to be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may have forgiveness in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Douay-Rheims Bible
To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Darby Bible Translation
to deliver him, I say, being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
English Revised Version
to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Webster's Bible Translation
To deliver such one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Weymouth New Testament
I have handed over such a man to Satan for the destruction of his body, that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus.
World English Bible
are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Young's Literal Translation
to deliver up such a one to the Adversary for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Geneva Study Bible
(5) The one who is excommunicated is delivered to the power of Satan, in that he is cast out of the house of God.
(c) What it is to be delivered to Satan the Lord himself declares when he says, Let him be unto thee as a heathen and publican; Mt 18:17. That is to say, to be disfranchised and put out of the right and privileges of the city of Christ, which is the Church, outside of which Satan is lord and master.
(6) The goal of excommunication is not to cast away the excommunicate that he should utterly perish, but that he may be saved, that is, that by this means his flesh may be tamed, that he may learn to live to the Spirit.
People's New Testament
5:5 To deliver such one unto Satan. Not only this one, but all such persons. To deliver unto Satan is to excommunicate; to extradite from the kingdom of God to the prince of this world. The expression is used in 1Ti 1:20.
For the destruction of the flesh. Fleshly desires had caused the sin. These must be destroyed. The humiliation of excommunication, the sense of one's lost condition, was well adapted to bring a repentance. Some have held that this meant to send some painful disease miraculously. I believe that the Latin fathers and Beza are right in understanding that it refers to the mortification of the offender, cast out, shunned by the church as a dead body. This person is ordered to be restored, having repented, and no mention is made of disease, in 2Co 2:7.
That the spirit may be saved. This is the object of all true discipline. If carried out, as in the early church, it was well calculated to bring to repentance. It was effective in this instance, as we learn from 2Co 2:6.
Wesley's Notes
5:5 To deliver such an one - This was the highest degree of punishment in the Christian church; and we may observe, the passing this sentence was the act of the apostle, not of the Corinthians. To Satan - Who was usually permitted, in such cases, to inflict pain or sickness on the offender. For the destruction - Though slowly and gradually. Of the flesh - Unless prevented by speedy repentance.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
5. Besides excommunication (of which the Corinthians themselves had the power), Paul delegates here to the Corinthian Church his own special power as an apostle, of inflicting corporeal disease or death in punishment for sin ('to deliver to Satan such an one,' that is, so heinous a sinner). For instances of this power, see Ac 5:1-11; 13:11; 1Ti 1:20. As Satan receives power at times to try the godly, as Job (Job 2:4-7) and Paul (2Co 12:7; compare also as to Peter, Lu 22:31), much more the ungodly. Satan, the 'accuser of the brethren' (Re 12:10) and the 'adversary' (1Pe 5:8), demands the sinner for punishment on account of sin (Zec 3:1). When God lets Satan have his way, He is said to 'deliver the sinner unto Satan' (compare Ps 109:6). Here it is not finally; but for the affliction of the body with disease, and even death (1Co 11:30, 32), so as to destroy fleshly lust. He does not say, 'for the destruction of the body,' for it shall share in redemption (Ro 8:23); but of the corrupt 'flesh' which 'cannot inherit the kingdom of God,' and the lusts of which had prompted this offender to incest (Ro 7:5; 8:9, 10). The 'destruction of the flesh' answers to 'mortify the deeds of the body' (Ro 8:13), only that the latter is done by one's self, the former is effected by chastisement from God (compare 1Pe 4:6):
the spirit . saved-the spiritual part of man, in the believer the organ of the Holy Spirit. Temporary affliction often leads to permanent salvation (Ps 83:16).
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:1-8 The apostle notices a flagrant abuse, winked at by the Corinthians. Party spirit, and a false notion of Christian liberty, seem to have saved the offender from censure.
GRIEVOUS INDEED IS IT THAT CRIMES SHOULD SOMETIMES BE COMMITTED BY PROFESSORS OF THE GOSPEL, OF WHICH EVEN HEATHENS WOULD BE ASHAMED. SPIRITUAL PRIDE. SPIRITUAL PRIDE AND FALSE DOCTRINES TEND TO BRING IN, AND TO SPREAD SUCH SCANDALS. HOW DREADFUL THE EFFECTS OF SIN! THE DEVIL REIGNS WHERE CHRIST DOES NOT. AND A MAN IS IN HIS KINGDOM, AND UNDER HIS POWER, WHEN NOT IN CHRIST. THE BAD EXAMPLE OF A MAN OF INFLUENCE IS VERY MISCHIEVOUS; IT SPREADS FAR AND WIDE. CORRUPT PRINCIPLES AND EXAMPLES, IF NOT CORRECT, WOULD HURT THE WHOLE CHURCH.
Believers must have new hearts, and lead new lives. Their common conversation and religious deeds must be holy. So far is the sacrifice of Christ our Passover for us, from rendering personal and public holiness unnecessary, that it furnishes powerful reasons and motives for it.
Without holiness we can neither live by faith in him, nor join in his ordinances with comfort and profit.
Proverbs 23:14 You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.
1 Timothy 1:20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.(NASB)
For every text you quote others can and have throughout time quoted texts that advocate going the other way. It is a futile exercise, it would be utterly unproductive, we still would not meet. Our ground visions are too different.
Which is why the Catholics look at what the teaching of the Church says and not what an individual thinks. Jesus was not saying that the woman taken in adultery should not be punished - quite the reverse. It was because He, as God, could see into the woman's soul and could see that she knew she had sinned and that she deserved to be punished but that she was also repentant and thus he forgave her. We are required to judge others by their behaviour, that is all we can do. Unfortunately in this case the behaviour does not show repentance. The sin is judged as is required by God's laws to denounce this behaviour and call for repentance. As to his culpability that is entirely for God to know and judge.
Pearl,
Every denomination uses the bible to substantiate their vision.
I repeat my last comment. This is my last post.
That might be so - but we are talking about Catholics here not any denomination. I don't supose MG cares a jot what any other denomination thinks so why bring any other denomination into the discussion - useless.
Not every catholic thinks like you, eventhough you present it that way. In fact this comment section is proof of it. Even someone calling him/herself a traditional catholic doesn't agree with you.
Just shows what you know about Catholicism. Catholics are supposed to think the same way. Catholics are supposed to believe the same things and follow the same rules. It is Protestant to think that you can have sorts of differing views about the same thing and still call yourself a Catholic. You are Catholic in name only. And if you are supposed to be a Catholic then you are obviously a Modernist.
I am just stating a plain fact Pearl. You might believe that all of these other (traditional) catholics are misled, but obviously they don't share your point of view as to what a true catholic is. Some of them obviously believe it is you who is misled. That is just the way it is. Anyway, I am moving on.
Thing is it isn't my point of view that counts. It is what the Traditional teaching of the Church says that counts. Glad you're moving on - hope the sun shines where ever you are going :-)
I think one more reaction is justified. I will explain more plainly what I said above:
As far as these people are concerned you obviously do not get to put them on the side bench when it comes to determining what THE (traditional) church is and requires of people in this respect (to link this back to Mr. Gibson). To these people your ideas do not represent what THE (traditional) church wants - theirs do.
Pete, I'm afraid your answer is a nonsense. Sure they might make up their own rules but, as I said, that isn't what counts. What counts is the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and that is easy to know - you don't have to make it up. If Gibson has got an annulment from his Dad they all 'know' that it doesn't count for anything. Rules is rules as they say.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story