'It Is
as It Was'
Mel Gibson's "The Passion" gets a thumbs-up
from the pope.
By Peggy Noonan*
Wednesday,
December 17, 2003: Here's some happy news this
Christmas season, an unexpected gift for those who have seen and
admired Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion," and wish to
support it. The film has a new admirer, and he is a person of some
influence. He is in fact the head of the Holy Roman Catholic and
Apostolic Church.
Pope John Paul II
saw the movie the weekend before last, in the Vatican, apparently in
his private rooms, on a television, with a DVD, and accompanied by his
closest friend, Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz. Afterwards and with an
eloquent economy John Paul shared with Msgr. Dziwisz his verdict.
Dziwisz, the following Monday, shared John Paul's five-word response
with the co-producer of The Passion, Steve McEveety.
This is what the
pope said: "It is as it was."
Officially the Vatican
has avoided formal comment on the film because its contents have been a
matter of recently famous dispute and argument. The movie has been
accused of being harsh toward Jews, and Mr. Gibson, the film's
director, has been accused of anti-Semitism. This summer a group of
scholars associated with the U.S. Bishops Council obtained an
apparently stolen copy of an early draft of the script and came forward
to denounce it as scripturally incorrect and potentially injurious of
Christian-Jewish relations. Mr. Gibson protested, and the bishops more
or less fled the scene, but the damage was done.
Since then, church
officials have tended to treat the film as if it were a car crash that
happened down the street: It can complicate your life to go there, and
it can get messy. Six weeks ago, at a diplomatic reception in Rome to
mark the 25th anniversary of John Paul's papacy, I spoke to an
important American cardinal about the controversy and urged him to see
the film and come to his own honest conclusions. He blinked anxiously
behind thick glasses. No, he said, he shouldn't, the movie is a matter
of "dispute." (The church is very odd these days in that it dodges
those controversies on which it has known authority and expertise, and
seems to embrace those controversies on which it seems to have nothing
to add but airy non sequiturs. See the comments this week of Cardinal
Renato Martino, who said it was not compassionate of U.S. forces to
publicly search Saddam Hussein's head for lice. Yes, how brutal. Why,
it was like what Saddam himself would have done with a captured foe,
except once he was done with him he wouldn't have a head. But never
mind.)
John Paul II, who even
with the challenges of his current illness has more good sense than
many of his cardinals, knew of the controversy surrounding Mr. Gibson's
film, and wanted to see it. Producer Steve McEveety, who had flown to
Rome uninvited to show the film to as many Vatican officials as he
could, gave the DVD to Msgr. Dziwisz on Friday, Dec. 5. The monsignor
and the pope watched it together. Where did they watch it? I asked Mr.
McEveety in a telephone interview this week. "At the pope's pad," he
laughed. In the papal apartments. "He had to watch it late in the
evening," Mr. McEveety said of John Paul. "He's pretty well booked. But
he really wanted to see it."
Afterwards, Msgr.
Dziwisz gave Mr. McEveety the pope's reaction. The pope found it very
powerful, and approved of it. Mr. McEveety was delighted. Msgr. Dziwisz
added that the pope said to him, as the film neared its end, five words
that he wished to pass on: "It is as it was." The film, the Holy Father
felt, tells the story the way the story happened. A week later Mr.
McEveety was marveling at what he felt was the oracular quality of the
statement. "Five words. Eleven letters." (I asked the pope's veteran
press spokesman, Dr Joaquin Navarro-Valles, if he knew if the pope had
said anything beyond "It is as it was." He e-mailed back that he did
not know of any further comments.)
"I was kind of
relieved--it's a scary thing," said Mr. McEveety. "But Billy Graham saw
it and was very supportive, and now JPII. The amazing thing is they're
in agreement on the film."
Why is this news? Not
only because John Paul has, it seems, broken free of the Vatican
apparatus to see the film, and not only, obviously, because of who he
is, but also because of his history, the facts of his life. He is a
scholar, a poet and former playwright who loves the drama and himself
considered acting on and writing for the stage professionally.
And no pope has
done more for Jewish-Christian relations than he. He has had a
profound engagement with Jews and Judaism both since his elevation and
before it. He would know cheap when he sees it, and he would know
anti-Semitic, too. His approbation would not be given lightly.
Michael Novak, a
scholar of this pope, summed it up for me. He said John Paul's life has
been marked by "a profound sense of the irrationality and barbarity
which fell upon the Jews in World War II, which he saw and experienced,
which suffused his desire thereafter to pitch his life close to the
Jews. One sees it in his lifelong friendships, in his visit to the
Jewish community in Rome, in his unforgettable visit to Auschwitz, and
in his deeply affecting visit to Jerusalem. His prayerfulness, his
reverence for those who have suffered, and his acute wish that this
suffering will be lifted by the grace of God, have been visible and
moving to all who have observed him."
"It is as it was."
I don't know if
those words will settle the matter. But for me they do, and for many
they will.
I saw a screening
of "The Passion" in Washington last July with about 50 writers, editors
and activists. I worried that it might seem to be anti-Semitic, that it
might rouse passions in viewers in a way that would cause pain to Jews
and others. I came away reassured. It is a moving film, and what it
moves you to is tears, and thought. It doesn't rouse, it seeps in and
inspires introspection and consideration. It is the story of a Jew who
was the Messiah; it is the story of his loving Jewish mother, his
ardent Jewish followers, and his Jewish opponents, who saw him as
heretical and dangerous.
He is brutally put
to death by non-Jewish Roman soldiers, who are portrayed as sadistic in
a businesslike way, on the acquiescence of a tired, non-Jewish cynic
who then sought to wash his hands of culpability. It is a film that
leaves the viewer indicting not Jews and not Romans and not cynical
bureaucrats. It leaves you indicting yourself: it leaves you wondering
about what your part in that agonizing drama would have been back then,
and what your part is today.
I'm glad the Holy
Father chose to see it; I'm glad he has spoken; I'm glad his judgment
was, "It is as it was." If this ends the controversy, or quells it, and
I believe it should, that would be a beautiful gift to everyone this
holiday season.
* Ms. Noonan is
a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A
Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon &
Schuster). This article appears on the WSJ Editorial Page
on Thursday, 18 December 2003.