Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
[The following is a viewer letter sent to us by a lady named Therese.]
Dear Catholic Exchange:
I just saw The Passion of The Christ this weekend with members of the church I attend. That evening, my father, who is Catholic and saw the movie with his church, gave me your A Guide to the Passion, saying, “I hope this doesn't offend you.”
I actually thought this book would be about the movie and answer questions about it. But I didn't have to read far to realize the purpose of this book is to pull people away from the true intent of the movie, focusing on Jesus Christ, and instead promote the Catholic religion.
Response: Both Mel Gibson and the authors of A Guide to the Passion are Catholics. We believe that to be in union with the Catholic Church is to be in union with Jesus Christ. To say that one must choose between Christ and His Body is a statement that makes no sense to us. So I'm not sure how it is you can claim that the “true intent” of the movie is the opposite of what Mel Gibson clearly believes the intent to be.
I was raised Catholic but now attend a nondenominational church. This is my choice and I am far more devoted to God now than any Catholic Church ever taught me to be. This is not a criticism of the Catholic Church. God led me on a path to bring me closer to Him. That path is different for everyone.
I found it extremely offensive that in the first couple of pages of your book you immediately start out insulting “Protestants” and claiming that somehow “Protestants” can't possibly appreciate this movie the way they should or that they can't bring others to experience the same appreciation.
Response: Nobody involved with the book said any such thing. What we said is that the film is a deeply Catholic film that is soaked in both Marian and Eucharistic belief which the vast majority of American Protestants are either indifferent to, unaware of, or actively hostile to. This being so, it seemed like a good idea to us to write a book about the film from the perspective of people who actually share Gibson's beliefs about Mary and the Eucharist (among other Catholic teachings). That's not an insult. It's simply a fact.
How can you possibly call the efforts of other Christians to bring others to Christ “sophisticated evangelization strategies?”
Response: Because they are sophisticated evangelization strategies. Why is that insulting? I consider it a compliment. I wish Catholics had sophisticated evangelization strategies.
…and make statements like “the irony is that our Protestant 'brothers and sisters' cannot adequately speak to many of the issues”?
Response: Because they can't. If you don't believe that Mary is the Virgin Mother of God, the mother of the Church, Jesus' greatest disciple and most glorious creation, and the model for all believers, then you are going to have a hard time adequately trying to articulate Gibson's vision since he does believe all those things. Likewise, if you don't worship and adore the Eucharist as Jesus Christ present to us under the appearance of bread and wine, then you will not be able to articulate what Gibson is trying to say in his film.
What could be further from the purpose of this film than statements like those? How can you possibly know what’s in the minds and hearts of other Christians?
Response: By reading their doctrinal statements, which frequently flatly deny what Gibson and Catholic teaching affirm about things like Mary and the Eucharist.
First of all, I'm a Christian, a follower of Christ, not a “Protestant.” I'm not protesting anything.
Response: Um, you're protesting our book. And by extension you are protesting the Catholic theology behind the book, unless, of course, you agree with what I've written about Mary and the Eucharist above.
The reason we have “Protestant” religions is not because “bad” people left the Catholic Church to found their own religions but because the Catholic Church at times in history became so corrupt that it was necessary to found new religions to provide a way to worship God in a noncorrupt environment. How sad that some of this corruption continues to this very day as the Catholic Church still cannot decisively put child-molesting priests where they belong — in prison. But that is why religion is not the key to Heaven, our relationship with God is.
Response: This is a startling left turn. Where in the length and breadth of the book did we say that the Reformation was caused by “bad” people leaving the Church? Where, indeed, did we say that Catholics are without sin? What does that have to do with the film?
Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” He did not say through the Catholic Church or any other church. Jesus founded through Peter a catholic (with a small c) church, meaning universal. It was man who turned it into the Catholic (with a capital C) Church and instituted many of its rules, regulations and preachings.
Response: This is again a false dichotomy. To receive Jesus is to become joined to his Body, the Church. No Catholic says the Church saves you apart from Jesus. However, the implication of your statement is that Jesus saves you without joining you to His Body, the Church. This is false.
I do not insult Catholics or members of other religions. Anyone who is a true Christian rejoices in the fact that someone else has accepted Christ into their life.
Response: As do we. And nothing in our book says otherwise.
According to Mel Gibson, he was called on by God (not the Catholic Church) to make this movie, and its purpose is for all who see it to personally experience what Christ endured for our sins and to gain as full an appreciation of that as possible. I have seen nowhere where Mel Gibson says his purpose is to prove Catholicism superior to other Christian religions.
Response: I'm not sure how you got to a claim of “superiority” on either Gibson's or our part. We do, of course, believe that the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic Church, but that's hardly a claim of “superiority” in the sense of saying Catholics are better people than non-Catholics. I assume you believe the Christian revelation is superior to the Jewish religion, right? Does it follow that you think all Christians are better than all Jews? Of course not. Well, it's the same here.
When you start out your book by insulting the efforts of other Christians who choose to worship in a different manner than you do, in my opinion, you are insulting Christ’s teachings as well.
Response: You have not shown where we insulted anybody. You simply taken a statement of fact (“Catholics believe different things than Protestants”) and chosen of your own free will to construe that statement of fact as an insult. However, the fact remains: if you want to understand what Gibson is saying in his film, it's generally a good idea to ask somebody who understands and shares Gibson's beliefs rather than to ask somebody who is indifferent to, unaware of, or hostile to Gibson's beliefs. That's why we wrote A Guide to the Passion.
John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that EVERYONE who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
Response: And we denied this where?
Thanks for writing, Therese.
Mark Shea
Co-Author, A Guide to the Passion
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
