20th Century Fox Cowards

[MC Just]

Ok Now I am Angry. They can put out all kinds of films, with filthy imorality and ugliness, but Catholics cant put a movie about Christ out!! I'm protesting this, it is not fair we are beng treated like we have no rights. Those ignorant Jews!!! Of course everybody listens to them right!! This fires me up, now I have more targets to aim at in my music.

Edited August 31, 2003 by Mc-Just†

[Luke2219]

Those ignorant Jews!!! Of course everybody listens to them right!! This fires me up, now I have more targets to aim at in my music.

They were right. The movie is already stirring up anti-semetic remarks.

[cmotherofpirl]

Do you have a better word to describe the behavior of those particular people involved?

[ironmonk]

They were right.  The movie is already stirring up anti-semetic remarks.

I do not see that as anti-semetic at all - given the context....

The article states that Jewish groups - some of which protested it.

MC states that "Those" meaning the Jews in referenced in the article. Not all Jews.

They are ignorant to keep the truth from being put on screen when they do not protest any of the other filth that is put out by fox.

"Because of the ignorant jews stated in the article, that protested the release of the film, fox will not distribute it"

The article refers to them as Jews... therefore nothing is wrong with MC's statment. If the article would have called them "the widget group"; MC would have posted "Ignorant widget group".

Context people.... Context.

Also, it's not the movie that is stiring up the remark of MC... it is the actions of the group.

-ironmonk

Edited August 31, 2003 by ironmonk

[Good Friday]

They were right. The movie is already stirring up anti-semetic remarks.

Actually, I don't think the movie could be accused of this. However, I do think the Jews' opposition to the movie is going to stir up anti-Semitism. If these Jews (not all Jews) would just let us make our movie, there would be no problem. But they, being very biased toward us and our God themselves, are being anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. This will no doubt remind people of the first anti-Christian/anti-Catholic act of the Jews: the crucifixion of Jesus.

What I'm saying is that these Jews, by their anti-Christian actions, are already stirring up anti-Semitic feelings before the movie even comes out.

[kdewolf2]

I don't understand why any criticism of the Jews and Judaism is considered "anti-semitic." It's like a ploy to shut down discussion of their faults. Sure, there has been anti-semitism in the past, which should always be condemned, like all the recent popes (including Pius XII) have done. But why can't we criticize the Jews at all? Why can't we talk about their harsh treatment of the Palestinians? Why can't we criticize their usurious practices during the middle ages, which is what really won them their infamy and hatred? Why can't we point out Jewish leaders were the prime movers behind the crucifixion of Jesus? Catholics are always being criticized, for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo, the Holocaust (?!!!), abusive nuns, pedophile priests, etc., etc., etc. But if Jews are ever criticized, it is suddenly "anti-Semitic." No, I think hanging a Jew from a tree is anti-Semitic. This is not anti-Semitism. Pointing out the ignorance of the Jews who run the ADL is not anti-Semitic either. Where's the sense of balance? No one is suggesting that every single Jew is personally responsible for the crucifixion. In reality, every single human being alive, be he Jew or Gentile, is ultimately responsible for the crucifixion. The crowd shouting for the death of Jesus represents the complicity of us all. The Pharisees represent the hypocrisy of us all. Pontius Pilate represents the moral cowardice of us all. But let's face it. The crowd shouted: "His blood be upon us and our children!" Modern Jews can disown it, and we should be good enough to accept them. But if Catholics have to apologize for events that happened hundreds of years ago, Jews should too. They can't just pretend it never happened. Why is it that the Church today has to apologize for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo, etc., etc., because there is some kind of moral continuity but there is no such moral continuity for the Jews compelling them to offer apologies? Why is it that the Church is the only religious body that has ever apologized for any of its past faults? The idea that The Passion will spark violence against Jews seems to me simply absurd. Movies have been made about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection before and we didn't have any problems with it. It seems to me like these Jews are just trying to ignore the past and pretend it never happened. Okay, I feel better now. Feel free to jump on me for being anti-Semitic. I'm not. I couldn't care less what anyone thinks.

[cmotherofpirl]

I agree with you.

I would like to point out that the Church apologized for its errant members, not for the Church itself which cannot err.

THe link for the actual speech is at EWTN.com

[cmotherofpirl]

I agree with you.

I would like to point out that the Church apologized for its errant members, not for the Church itself which cannot err.

THe link for the actual speech is at EWTN.com

[VeraMaria]

I agree with you.

I would like to point out that the Church apologized for its errant members, not for the Church itself which cannot err.

THe link for the actual speech is at EWTN.com

Could you find us the link??

THanks!!!! :D B)

[Carrie]

I agree with MC Just and don't think his remarks were anti-semetic at all.

This country is more anti-Catholic than anti-semetic and Fox backing out of this film is proof to that.

[VeraMaria]

I agree with MC Just and don't think his remarks were anti-semetic at all. 

This country is more anti-Catholic than anti-semetic and Fox backing out of this film is proof to that.

Amen to that! ;)

[cmotherofpirl]

CHURCH ASKS PARDON FOR HER MEMBERS’ SINS

Pope John Paul II

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Recognition of the community implications of sin spurs the Church to ask forgiveness for the 'historical' sins of her children", the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 1 September. This repentance corresponds "to a necessary requirement of the truth, which, in addition to the positive aspects, recognizes the human limitations and weaknesses of the various generations of Christ's disciples". Here is a translation of the Pope's catechesis, which was the 23rd in the series on God the Father and was given in Italian.

1. "Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers.... For we have sinned and transgressed by departing from you, and we have done every kind of evil. Your commandments we have not heeded or observed" (Dn 3:26, 29-30). This is how the Jews prayed after the Exile (cf. also Bar 2:11-13), accepting responsibility for the sins committed by their fathers. The Church imitates their example and also asks forgiveness for the historical sins of her children.

In our century, in fact, the Second Vatican Council gave an important impetus to the Church's renewal, so that as a community of the saved she might become an ever more vivid image of Jesus' message to the world. Faithful to the teaching of the most recent Council, the Church is more and more aware that she can offer the world a consistent witness to the Lord. only through the continual purification of her members. Therefore, "at once holy and always in need of purification, [she] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal" (Lumen gentium, n. 8).

2. Recognition of the community implications of sin spurs the Church to ask forgiveness for the "historical" sins of her children. She is prompted to do this by the valuable opportunity offered by the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 which, following the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, intends to turn a new page of history by overcoming the obstacles that still divide human beings and Christians in particular.

The Church acknowledges the sins of her members

In my Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente, I therefore asked that at the end of this second millennium "the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal" (Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 33).

3. The recognition of historical sins presupposes taking a stand in relation to events as they really happened and which only a serene and complete historical reconstruction can reveal. On the other hand, the judging of historical events cannot prescind from a realistic study of the conditioning caused by individual cultural contexts, before attributing specific moral responsibilities to individuals.

The Church is certainly not afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge mistakes wherever they have been identified, especially when they involve the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest, scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices, regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she has suffered.

When they have been established by serious historical research, the Church feels it her duty to acknowledge the sins of her members and to ask God and her brethren to forgive them. This request for pardon must not be understood as an expression of false humility or as a denial of her 2,000-year history, which is certainly richly deserving in the areas of charity, culture and holiness. Instead she responds to a necessary requirement of the truth, which, in addition to the positive aspects, recognizes the human limitations and weaknesses of the various generations of Christ's disciples.

4. The approach of the Jubilee calls attention to certain types of sin, past and present, for which we particularly need to ask the Father's mercy.

I am thinking first of all of the painful reality of the division among Christians. The wounds of the past, certainly not without sins on both sides, continue to scandalize the world. A second act of repentance concerns the acquiescence given to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth (cf. Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 35). Although many acted here in good faith, it was certainly not evangelical to think that the truth should be imposed by force. Then there is the lack of discernment by many Christians in situations where basic human rights were violated. The request for forgiveness applies to whatever should have been done or was passed over in silence because of weakness or bad judgement, to what was done or said hesitantly or inappropriately.

Recognition of the past for clearer witness in the future

On this and other points "the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness' (ibid.).

Thus the penitent attitude of the Church in our time, on the threshold of the third millennium, is not intended as a convenient historical revisionism, which at any rate would be as suspect as it is useless. Instead, it turns our gaze to the past and to the recognition of sins, so that they will serve as a lesson for a future of ever clearer witness.

To the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors the Holy Father said:

I warmly welcome the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors present at today's Audience, especially those from Scotland, Indonesia and the United States of America. Wishing you a pleasant visit to Christian Rome, I invoke upon you the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Holy Father also said to the Polish-speaking pilgrims and visitors:

Today it is exactly 60 years since that tragic day when the Second World War broke out. The Nazi invasion of Poland began a sad period marked by the death and suffering of individuals and entire nations.

With particular gratitude we remember today the heroic defenders of our homeland, who during the September campaign shed their blood to save it. We ask God to reward their sacrifice in his glory.

As our thoughts return today to that painful time, let us pray for the gift of peace for our homeland and for all the nations of Europe and the world.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Mt 5:9).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from:

L'Osservatore Romano

Weekly Edition in English

8 September 1999, page 7

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.

The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation

L'Osservatore Romano English Edition

320 Cathedral St.

Baltimore, MD 21201

Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315

Fax: (410) 332-1069

lormail@catholicreview.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

www.ewtn.com

HOME-EWTNews-FAITH-TELEVISION-RADIO-LIBRARY-GALLERY-CATALOGUE-GENERAL

ESPAÑOL

[Luke2219]

I do not see that as anti-semitic at all - given the context....

The article states that Jewish groups - some of which protested it.

MC states that "Those" meaning the Jews in referenced in the article. Not all Jews.

They are ignorant to keep the truth from being put on screen when they do not protest any of the other filth that is put out by fox.

"Because of the ignorant jews stated in the article, that protested the release of the film, fox will not distribute it"

The article refers to them as Jews... therefore nothing is wrong with MC's statment. If the article would have called them "the widget group"; MC would have posted "Ignorant widget group".

Context people.... Context.

Also, it's not the movie that is stirring up the remark of MC... it is the actions of the group.

-ironmonk

You're right. I'm sorry for my earlier remark. I should have explained my point instead of just leaving a flippant comment.

I was intending to point out that the statement was careless because, taken out of context, it is considered anti-semitic. That when we are discussing these things we should be careful to not give them any more fuel to add to the fire so to speak.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the comment. I know it was not anti-semitic.

[VeraMaria]

:)

Here's another article on this subject, it came out today.

Fox Declines Mel Gibson's 'Passion'

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com

Monday, Sept. 1, 2003

Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox, which usually distributes Mel Gibson's films, has turned thumbs down on "The Passion," the film about Jesus of Nazareth's last hours and crucifixion, the New York Daily News reports.

The paper said other Hollywood studios appear less than enthusiastic about taking the project on, which could make it difficult for movie goers to see the film when it is released early next year.

According to the New York Times, which has been a frequent critic of the film, Hollywood executives say that "The Passion," which the Times describes as chronicling "in bloody detail" the last hours of Jesus' life," and "potentially inflammatory -- not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox."

Fox's decision to drop any plans to distribute the film came just before a demonstration Thursday by a small group of protesters in front of Murdoch's News Corporation's Manhattan headquarters.

The demonstration was led by Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a conservative Democrat, who said the film could incite anti-Semitic violence.

Hivkin's allegation drew an angry response from Catholic League president William Donohue.

“The furor over Mel Gibson’s film has now reached a fever pitch," Donohue said. "Assemblyman Hikind’s response is an example of how reaction to ‘The Passion’ has spilled into hysteria."

'Nonsense'

He added: “The contention that the film ‘will spur anti-Semitic fervor’ is nonsense. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, after seeing the film, commented, ‘You can quote me -- Mel Gibson’s 'The Passion' is not anti-Semitic. I did not see any anti-Semitism in it.’"

But concerns about anti-Semitism may have been the main reason Fox decided to pass on the film.

"Icon [Gibson's production firm] told us that it has a number of alternative distribution options that it is pursuing," Florence Grace, a spokeswoman for Fox, said. "In light of this, Fox and Icon agreed late last week that Fox will not be involved in the release of the film."

"Rupert Murdoch doesn't need the aggravation," an entertainment executive, speaking anonymously, told the Times.

The Times says the executive told them that International Creative Management, Gibson's Hollywood talent agency which is helping him find a United States distributor, has begun approaching some major studios like Warner Brothers and Miramax to see if they are interested in seeing the movie, adding that Icon executives are also talking to smaller distributors.

Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Gibson, told the Times that Fox executives had seen an early version of the film, but that the final version was still not complete. "He has to finish it first. He's got to do the music. It's almost ready to be shown."

Nierob also said the film might be best suited for a small boutique distributor, adding that "Icon is going to dictate the terms."

Already Gibson has shown the film to representatives of the Christian and Jewish community, and has made changes based on criticisms and suggestions he has received.

[kdewolf2]

What the heck is a conservative Democrat anyway?